Support for writing ParticleSetView#2620
Draft
erikvansebille wants to merge 3 commits intoParcels-code:mainfrom
Draft
Support for writing ParticleSetView#2620erikvansebille wants to merge 3 commits intoParcels-code:mainfrom
erikvansebille wants to merge 3 commits intoParcels-code:mainfrom
Conversation
Member
Author
|
@VeckoTheGecko, keen to hear your thoughts about these four items above! |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description
This PR implements a way to write a ParticleSetView into a ParticleFile, and adds a tutorial to show how it works. I think this could be a killer feature, as it provides the user much more control over when particles are written (an often-asked feature pre-v4!)
Note that there are still a few rough edges about this implementation. Notably:
ParticleSetView.fieldset?timeto write, but the Kernel itself doesn't know the timestep. Users can provide particles.time, but this may result in particles being written that have not yet started (to be explored)outputdtargument on initialisation, even though that has no effect. Would be better to also allowNonehere?Once we settled on these four open questions here, I will add unit tests etc
Checklist
mainfor normal development,v3-supportfor v3 support)AI Disclosure