-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 83
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Provide NPH data in physical boundaries to advection calculation #1210
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
e572c17
to
776b630
Compare
Would appreciate help in confirming that this does what it's supposed to do. |
This looks good to me. One change you could make for efficiency is to only fill at most one ghost cell of the nph arrays (filling more is not wrong just possibly most costly). |
1bab51b
to
893f467
Compare
bf7b836
to
0bcb301
Compare
… for sake of physbc
* set temporary mfabs to 0 before filling bc
0bcb301
to
d5011bb
Compare
I am seeing this:
with pretty high diffs. For example:
|
Co-authored-by: Marc T. Henry de Frahan <marchdf@gmail.com>
…ov.H Co-authored-by: Marc T. Henry de Frahan <marchdf@gmail.com>
On the reg test results: we definitely have some concerns, mainly about the bndry_input cases. uncertain about the freestream_godunov_inout as well.
|
Summary
Changes requested in conjunction with AMReX-Hydro development. For the sake of time-varying boundary conditions, passing the advected variable data at n+1/2 to the advection routine.
Pull request type
Please check the type of change introduced:
Checklist
The following is included:
This PR was tested by running: