[petsc-dev] DMDA VTK viewer regression: field names missing

[Patrick Sanan]

Sorry about the delay on this. Here's a PR - see additional comments there!
https://bitbucket.org/petsc/petsc/pull-requests/1602/psanan-dmda-vtk-view-fieldnames/diff


Am So., 28. Apr. 2019 um 21:41 Uhr schrieb Jed Brown <jed at jedbrown.org>:

> Patrick Sanan <patrick.sanan at gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Am Mi., 3. Apr. 2019 um 21:26 Uhr schrieb Jed Brown <jed at jedbrown.org>:
> >
> >> Patrick Sanan via petsc-dev <petsc-dev at mcs.anl.gov> writes:
> >>
> >> > I was going to say something similar to Matt; to me it is worth the
> 1.5x
> >> > redundancy in the data if I can just view the output file with "doing
> >> > anything special". I have also done something similar to what you're
> >> > describing with save states, and it works fine; weirdly it seems like
> >> much
> >> > higher overhead than it is, though.
> >>
> >> That overhead for 2D fields isn't a big deal for me, but how would you
> >> identify that three components should be interpreted as vectors?  What
> >> if they are three chemical concentrations?  Plotting as vectors would
> >> just be confusing in that case.
> >>
> > True - I was blinded by my own use case here.
> >
> >>
> >> > Here's what I'd propose:  too ugly and convoluted?
> >> > - If the user has set any custom field names for the DMDA, interpret
> that
> >> > to mean that they want to deal with them individually, so use the old
> >> > behavior (but incorporate Dave's comments on improving the field
> names)
> >> > - Otherwise, assume that the user wants the new (current) behavior
> >> > - Document this stuff as much as possible to try to avoid confusion
> >>
> >> I think this sounds good.
> >>
> > Cool - I'll set it up.
>
> Patrick, any progress on this?
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20190429/f0d621ff/attachment.html>