Conversation
This branch has not been deployed
This file contains hidden or 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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
What type of PR is this? (check all applicable)
Description
Both
addScalarBC2DandaddScalarBC3Dsilently fail when there are implicit (linear) terms in the operator they are adding boundary conditions to.The line
[rows1,cols1,s1] = find(A(rowsbc1,:))causesrows1to be[1; 2; 3; 4; ...; numel(rowsbc1)]when there are non-zero terms present inA(rowsbc1,:). This results in the left, right, and top boundary conditions being incorrectly applied as the lineA = A - sparse(rows1, cols1, s1, size(A,1), size(A,2))does not correctly zero out the boundary rows.This is fixed by replacing the problematic lines mentioned above with
A(rows1,:) = sparse(numel(rows1),size(A,2));addScalarBC1Ddoes not have this problem.Related Issues & Documents
QA Instructions, Screenshots, Recordings
Run the following code snippet with the current implementation and compare with the results from the fixed version presented below:
Keep-open request
keep-open.Reason:
Added/updated tests?
Read Contributing Guide and Code of Conduct
[optional] Are there any post deployment tasks we need to perform?
No
[optional] What gif best describes this PR or how it makes you feel?