adding wall loss regression test

[K20shores]

When I was investigating the release bug with music box, I ended up recreating the wall loss example in micm to pinpoint what was going on. I figured it would be good to go ahead and save this code as a regression test

[Copilot]

Copilot reviewed 4 out of 5 changed files in this pull request and generated 2 comments.

Files not reviewed (1)

• test/regression/CMakeLists.txt: Language not supported

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 95.32%. Comparing base (6f7daa6) to head (2bf79b7).
Report is 2 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #756      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   95.52%   95.32%   -0.21%     
==========================================
  Files          59       60       +1     
  Lines        3755     3763       +8     
==========================================
  Hits         3587     3587              
- Misses        168      176       +8     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[boulderdaze]

I don't know what the flow tube is, but if it is a specific mechanism, would it make sense to create a directory for it as we have one for RosebrockChapman?

[K20shores]

I don't know what the flow tube is, but if it is a specific mechanism, would it make sense to create a directory for it as we have one for RosebrockChapman?

I think the reason RosebrockChapman has its own directory is because it has a whole set of hard-coded files specific to that mechanism. The tests I added here just use our API, similar to what we do in the integration tests. I'm fine with putting it in a directory if you'd prefer though.

[boulderdaze]

I don't know what the flow tube is, but if it is a specific mechanism, would it make sense to create a directory for it as we have one for RosebrockChapman?

I think the reason RosebrockChapman has its own directory is because it has a whole set of hard-coded files specific to that mechanism. The tests I added here just use our API, similar to what we do in the integration tests. I'm fine with putting it in a directory if you'd prefer though.

Okay, I understand