Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fix DIRK boundary conditions #103

Merged
merged 11 commits into from
Nov 20, 2024
Merged

Fix DIRK boundary conditions #103

merged 11 commits into from
Nov 20, 2024

Conversation

ScottMacLachlan
Copy link
Collaborator

@ScottMacLachlan ScottMacLachlan commented Nov 17, 2024

When BCs were refactored in #98, the DIRK case was left untouched.

This PR aims to correct that, as well as addressing the root problem in #102, where we don't implement the correct DAE-style BCs for explicit schemes

fixes #102

@ScottMacLachlan ScottMacLachlan marked this pull request as draft November 17, 2024 00:26
@ScottMacLachlan ScottMacLachlan marked this pull request as ready for review November 17, 2024 01:36
Copy link
Collaborator

@rckirby rckirby left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This really looks great. As long as tests pass, I’m happy with it but do have a few questions. Not sure if changes to code are needed, or just my understanding.

Copy link
Collaborator

@rckirby rckirby left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks!

@rckirby rckirby merged commit 164cd6e into master Nov 20, 2024
2 checks passed
@rckirby rckirby deleted the smaclachlan/fix_dirk_bcs branch November 20, 2024 14:43
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Dirichlet BCs don't work with explicit
3 participants