You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The current mechanics of Failcheck is cumbersome and not easy to extend. There are several places in the code (eg. Globals, DEM forces, different outputs) where code can cheaply check for NAN's, but here is no way to handle them.
Which would register handlers, that the rest of the code can use in case of emergencies.
That could describe what you want to do when we see NAN anywhere. It could even have stuff like ignoreGlobals="true" to have more control. Failcheck would be still there, but the only function of it would be to explicitly check for NAN's in the domain.
The current mechanics of Failcheck is cumbersome and not easy to extend. There are several places in the code (eg. Globals, DEM forces, different outputs) where code can cheaply check for NAN's, but here is no way to handle them.
We could introduce an element:
Which would register handlers, that the rest of the code can use in case of emergencies.
That could describe what you want to do when we see NAN anywhere. It could even have stuff like
ignoreGlobals="true"
to have more control.Failcheck
would be still there, but the only function of it would be to explicitly check for NAN's in the domain.FYI: @TravisMitchell
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: