Reorder initialization of partial strain rates in composite visco plastic #6004
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
bobmyhill
approved these changes
Aug 11, 2024
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks @gassmoeller , I agree, this way is clearer. Sorry that I made you hunt for a bug!
|
No worries it was my own fault that I didnt check if it was already fixed (and I shouldnt have assumed that the prior values dont matter). |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
I think this way the initialization is easier to understand (first resize, then initialize all values), the effect is the same.
Embarrassingly for the past two days I was hunting for a bug here that was already fixed in #5990 (my branch wasnt updated). The partial strain rates used to be not initialized and existing values would be included in the strain rates. After finding the bug I rebased and saw it was fixed already (in a PR I reviewed 🤦♂️). Anyway, both the code before and after this PR is correct (before #5990 it was potentially broken depending on the prior values in
partial_strain_rates).