fix failing DGMultiMesh and Compressible Navier-Stokes convergence tests

[jlchan]

See #1708 (comment).

Also #1709 and #1708

[github-actions]

Review checklist

This checklist is meant to assist creators of PRs (to let them know what reviewers will typically look for) and reviewers (to guide them in a structured review process). Items do not need to be checked explicitly for a PR to be eligible for merging.

Purpose and scope

• The PR has a single goal that is clear from the PR title and/or description.
• All code changes represent a single set of modifications that logically belong together.
• No more than 500 lines of code are changed or there is no obvious way to split the PR into multiple PRs.

Code quality

• The code can be understood easily.
• Newly introduced names for variables etc. are self-descriptive and consistent with existing naming conventions.
• There are no redundancies that can be removed by simple modularization/refactoring.
• There are no leftover debug statements or commented code sections.
• The code adheres to our conventions and style guide, and to the Julia guidelines.

Documentation

• New functions and types are documented with a docstring or top-level comment.
• Relevant publications are referenced in docstrings (see example for formatting).
• Inline comments are used to document longer or unusual code sections.
• Comments describe intent ("why?") and not just functionality ("what?").
• If the PR introduces a significant change or new feature, it is documented in NEWS.md.

Testing

• The PR passes all tests.
• New or modified lines of code are covered by tests.
• New or modified tests run in less then 10 seconds.

Performance

• There are no type instabilities or memory allocations in performance-critical parts.
• If the PR intent is to improve performance, before/after time measurements are posted in the PR.

Verification

• The correctness of the code was verified using appropriate tests.
• If new equations/methods are added, a convergence test has been run and the results
  are posted in the PR.

Created with ❤️ by the Trixi.jl community.

[ranocha]

Thanks a lot! There seems to be another instance: https://github.com/trixi-framework/Trixi.jl/actions/runs/6825685433/job/18564059148?pr=1728#step:7:5266

The formatting tests fails, too

[jlchan]

Caught a few more instances of test failures. Lets wait to see how CI goes, and I'll ping you when tests pass agan

[ranocha]

Great, thanks!

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (b1b300e) 67.32% compared to head (170d0f8) 96.20%.
Report is 1 commits behind head on v0.6-dev.

Additional details and impacted files

@@              Coverage Diff              @@
##           v0.6-dev    #1728       +/-   ##
=============================================
+ Coverage     67.32%   96.20%   +28.88%     
=============================================
  Files           423      424        +1     
  Lines         34120    34246      +126     
=============================================
+ Hits          22969    32945     +9976     
+ Misses        11151     1301     -9850     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	96.20% <ø> (+28.88%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files	Coverage Δ
.../p4est_2d_dgsem/elixir_navierstokes_convergence.jl	100.00% <ø> (+100.00%)	⬆️
...s/tree_2d_dgsem/elixir_navierstokes_convergence.jl	100.00% <ø> (+100.00%)	⬆️

... and 204 files with indirect coverage changes

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[jlchan]

Looks like the failing CNS tests were due to an issue with the formatting PR #1531. Some code in the convergence test source terms was removed!

Trixi.jl/examples/tree_2d_dgsem/elixir_navierstokes_convergence.jl

Lines 168 to 169 in 541a510

	-
	-

[sloede]

Looks like the failing CNS tests were due to an issue with the formatting PR #1531. Some code in the convergence test source terms was removed!

Trixi.jl/examples/tree_2d_dgsem/elixir_navierstokes_convergence.jl

Lines 168 to 169 in 541a510

	-
	-

Great catch! Did you check the other NSE manufactured solution tests as well? And did you verify that the EOC is correct?

I wonder if, for those elixirs with the elaborately formatted manufactured solution by @andrewwinters5000, we should just back the original code and put it in #! format: off and #! format: on guards to prevent re-formatting?

[andrewwinters5000]

Hmm, it is odd to me that the formatter would straight-up delete code. That seems like a separate thing to worry about. The source term from a manufactured solution is almost always complicated with lots of terms (formatted or not). I admit the formatting on the working version of the convergence elixir is strange ( it looks nice in my old Fortran code I promise :) ), but keeping it for the sake of ease that the test pass works for me.

[JoshuaLampert]

I don't think the formatter did that, but the manual formatting, e.g., here.

[jlchan]

I don't think the formatter did that, but the manual formatting, e.g., here.

Thanks for catching that!

All tests pass, I'll go ahead and merge this.

[ranocha]

Thanks a lot!