Add helper function for building buoyancy KernelFunctionOperation
#3972
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
There is still a problem with the API, because we have a
Buoyancytype, but then also abuoyancyconstructor which returns aKernelFunctionOperation.I think we should change
Buoyancyto something else and reserve the colloquial "buoyancy" for the field. This still leaves an issue with the model propertymodel.buoyancybut I feel that is a more minor issue. (We could also change the model property to something likebuoyancy_formulationto distinguish between the concept of the "model" or "formulation" that is used to compute buoyancy, and the "buoyancy field"b, but I don't want to go so far yet.)