Create a placeholder for the 1D Euler solver #125
Merged
Conversation
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
The equations are not implemented correctly. It is too hard because the spacetime abstraction layer is a mess.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Aided by the incorporation of libst, I am creating a placeholder for developing one-dimensional Euler solver by using the conservation element and solution element (CESE) method.
It is unfortunate that the template generalization made in libst actually got in the way for making the system solver! Fortunately, it is a rare opportunity to have a living demonstration for how a bad abstraction layer hurts. I kept the unsuccessful porting from the scalar solver to the system solve in
modmesh::spacetime::BadEuler1DSolver. The working solver ismodmesh::onedim::Euler1DSolver.The prototype solver probably does not provide correct answer, but it looks right. I will refine it later on.
The added code is unnecessarily long. It probably does not make sense for anyone else to review it.