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

add ion_particle_flux and refactor NEO parsing #5

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Jul 27, 2024
Merged

Conversation

orso82
Copy link
Member

@orso82 orso82 commented Jul 26, 2024

@adrianaghiozzi can you please run NEO and see that I have not broken things with my refactoring?

orso82 and others added 2 commits July 26, 2024 16:01
Co-authored-by: adrianaghiozzi <[email protected]>
@orso82
Copy link
Member Author

orso82 commented Jul 26, 2024

Great! I am glad you tested it.

Please review also my other changes. Note that the signature of flux_solution() has changed. Before:

flux_solution(PARTICLE_FLUX_e::T, STRESS_TOR_i::T, ENERGY_FLUX_e::T, ENERGY_FLUX_i::T)

and now

flux_solution(
    ENERGY_FLUX_e::T,
    ENERGY_FLUX_i::T,
    PARTICLE_FLUX_e::T,
    PARTICLE_FLUX_i::Vector{T},
    STRESS_TOR_i::T)

@adrianaghiozzi
Copy link
Collaborator

@orso82 I tested a few different cases with each of the models (:hirshmansigmar, :changhinton, :neo) and they give the same results as before for electron energy/particle and total ion energy fluxes, so this is good to go from my side.

I guess on the FUSE side you'll update things such that the neoclassical actor writes the ion_particle_flux solution to dd?

@orso82 orso82 merged commit bb93c7a into master Jul 27, 2024
1 check passed
@orso82 orso82 deleted the ion_particle_fluxes branch July 27, 2024 03:53
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.

2 participants