Added check for consistent periodic BCs and unspecified BCs #225
Conversation
This file contains 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
landinjm
requested changes
Sep 8, 2024
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This pull request addresses the following issues:
When a boundary condition for a field is unspecified in parameters.prm (i.e. it's completely missing or blank) a segmentation fault will occur
Periodic boundary conditions are currently allowed to be defined in an inconsistent manner (e.g. natural, periodic, natural natural)
Changes:
I made changes to load_BC_list.cc to give error messages for both of these cases. For issue (1) it checks if a BC list is empty, and for issue (2) it checks that 'periodic' is always specified in pairs for each direction.