[yt-users] problem with fields that use ghost zones

Matthew Turk matthewturk at gmail.com
Tue Jan 17 14:29:23 PST 2012


Hi Britton,

Looks great.  Thanks.

As a sidenote, I added the functionality to auto-detect which fields
are needed; supplying them in ValidateSpatial should be faster,
though.  Thanks!

-Matt

On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Britton Smith <brittonsmith at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I'm finally following up on this thread.  I just submitted a pull request
> for the docs that includes some documentation of how to create fields that
> use ghost zones.  Some of it was a little tricky to explain, so let me know
> if the wording can be improved.
>
> Britton
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 2:03 PM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Britton,
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Britton Smith <brittonsmith at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Hi Matt,
>> >
>> > I'm not sure I understand the change that you're talking about, but it
>> > seems
>> > that they were auto-detected in the past, since the example without them
>> > there used to work.  I'm in favor of returning to that if possible.
>> > Regardless, I think it would be worthwhile to add something to the
>> > derived
>> > fields documentation discussing this.  I could add that if we wanted it,
>> > but
>> > it will be good to have it reviewed, since I'm not very familiar with
>> > how it
>> > works.
>>
>> I think the best solution would be to have it simply auto-detect the
>> fields necessary, rather than mandating they be specified (which may
>> not always give the correct results.)  I'll implement this tomorrow
>> morning.
>>
>> After some digging, it seems to me that this situation arose because
>> we fixed a bug which had silently allowed this to occur, related to
>> checking for field parameters in fields requiring ghost zones.
>>
>> -Matt
>>
>> >
>> > Britton
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 1:26 PM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk at gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi Britton,
>> >>
>> >> It may not be documented, but I think we can actually auto-detect
>> >> them; this would add on a list of lists of strings to the hierarchy,
>> >> but I think that is manageable.  Would this be worthwhile?
>> >>
>> >> -Matt
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 1:24 PM, Britton Smith <brittonsmith at gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > Hi Sam,
>> >> >
>> >> > That fixed it, thanks!  I actually encountered this problem while
>> >> > working on
>> >> > my own derived field that used ghost zones and was using
>> >> > VorticitySquared as
>> >> > my example for how to do it.  I think in the past it was not required
>> >> > to
>> >> > list the fields with ValidateSpatial, which is why it was working as
>> >> > is
>> >> > in
>> >> > older versions.  I wasn't able to find documentation on how to make
>> >> > fields
>> >> > that use ghost_zones.  If it's in there and I just missed it, could
>> >> > someone
>> >> > point me toward it?  If not, I could add something to the Creating
>> >> > Derived
>> >> > Fields section.
>> >> >
>> >> > Britton
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Sam Skillman <samskillman at gmail.com>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Hey Britton,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It looks like VorticitySquared wasn't specifying the necessary
>> >> >> fields
>> >> >> (x,y,z velocity) in the definition.  I will push a change
>> >> >> momentarily
>> >> >> after
>> >> >> I look around at any other ghost zone requiring fields to make sure
>> >> >> they
>> >> >> work.  DivV, for example, does the right thing.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Sam
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 9:32 AM, Britton Smith
>> >> >> <brittonsmith at gmail.com>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Hi everyone,
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> I'm having a problem using fields that use ghost zones.  The
>> >> >>> following
>> >> >>> simple script:
>> >> >>> http://paste.yt-project.org/show/2010/
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> gives this error:
>> >> >>> http://paste.yt-project.org/show/bOikDPScBBtDiUGvH11X/
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> I am working from the tip, but I get the same behavior from yt/2.3.
>> >> >>> In
>> >> >>> yt/2.2, everything is working.  I am working now to narrow that
>> >> >>> range
>> >> >>> down a
>> >> >>> bit, but does anyone have an idea?
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Britton
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >> >>> yt-users mailing list
>> >> >>> yt-users at lists.spacepope.org
>> >> >>> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-users-spacepope.org
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> >> yt-users mailing list
>> >> >> yt-users at lists.spacepope.org
>> >> >> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-users-spacepope.org
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >> > yt-users mailing list
>> >> > yt-users at lists.spacepope.org
>> >> > http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-users-spacepope.org
>> >> >
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> yt-users mailing list
>> >> yt-users at lists.spacepope.org
>> >> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-users-spacepope.org
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > yt-users mailing list
>> > yt-users at lists.spacepope.org
>> > http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-users-spacepope.org
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> yt-users mailing list
>> yt-users at lists.spacepope.org
>> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-users-spacepope.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> yt-users mailing list
> yt-users at lists.spacepope.org
> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-users-spacepope.org
>



More information about the yt-users mailing list