New error when two different ICs are specified #29672
Conversation
|
Job Documentation, step Docs: sync website on 1b4c5a7 wanted to post the following: View the site here This comment will be updated on new commits. |
| mooseError("Two initial conditions have been provided for the variable ", | ||
| name(), | ||
| ". One from the user and one from the restart input file."); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| mooseError("Two initial conditions have been provided for the variable ", | |
| name(), | |
| ". One from the user and one from the restart input file."); | |
| paramError("initial_condition", "Two initial conditions have been provided for the variable ", | |
| name(), | |
| " using the 'initial_condition' and 'initial_from_file_var' parameters. Please remove one of them."); |
| @@ -56,6 +56,7 @@ AddVariableAction::validParams() | |||
| "Specifies a scaling factor to apply to this variable"); | |||
| params.addParam<std::vector<Real>>("initial_condition", | |||
| "Specifies a constant initial condition for this variable"); | |||
| params.addParam<std::string>("initial_from_file_var", "Initial from file"); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
let's use transferParam here (see examples in the Navier Stokes physics for example). So the names stay in sync
|
So the other day I noticed there was one test that was failing with this new error message, and that was the restart/restart_diffusion.restart_error_with_ics test since my new error will get thrown before checkICRestartError does. The only case I could find where this doesn't happen is if you have two variables with one being restarted while the other is given an initial condition. If that is something we want to test for I can go ahead an modify that one test to have two variables instead. If not I have a few ideas for modifying my error check so that it doesn't interfere with the other one. |
|
you ll have to modify that test to hit the error, but through a different code path since you covered this one so yes the 2 variables idea is good! |
DanielYankura
force-pushed
the
multiple_IC_check
branch
from
4c39d28 to
f6e8dc0
Compare
|
let's squash formatting commits with the commit introducing the formatting problem or (and) even better, install the format hooks (see scripts/) to avoid failing the precheck |
DanielYankura
force-pushed
the
multiple_IC_check
branch
from
416be8b to
f61fac0
Compare
|
Job Coverage, step Generate coverage on 1b4c5a7 wanted to post the following: Framework coverage
Modules coverageCoverage did not change Full coverage reportsReports
This comment will be updated on new commits. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| type = 'RunException' | ||
| input = part3.i | ||
| expect_err = 'Two initial conditions have been provided for the variable v using the \'initial_condition\' and \'initial_from_file_var\' parameters. Please remove one of them.' | ||
| [] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
missing the detail field here
ERRORS:
/tmp/build/moose/test/tests/restart/scalar-var/tests:part3:19
No 'detail' supplied
Control this message using: 'log_missing_detail'
-Error thrown if an initial_condition parameter is provided along with an initial_from_file_var parameter for the same variable. closes idaholab#20944
-error message is worded more clearly now -initial_from_file_var is now a transfer param -test was updated to reflect new error message
- previously this test failed because a mutliple ic error was returned before a restart with ic error was - now this test has two variables (u and v) - to get the proper error thrown one variable is restarted from a file and the other is given an ic - removed trailing whitespace for Civet precheck
DanielYankura
force-pushed
the
multiple_IC_check
branch
from
f61fac0 to
1b4c5a7
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
let's not regold those files.
you can either:
- keep your new test design but use Outputs/hide='v' to avoid needing to regold
- return back to the previous test and simply add the variable v in the command line to the test that is checking for restart + ics
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So I tried both of those methods and in both cases the simulation ran instead of erroring out. I'm wondering if adding the variable later by command line, or by hiding it in previous simulations, it doesn't get recognized as being a restarted variable and so it never errors?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What if instead I change my error into a warning saying that one of the input parameters will be overwritten. Then for this test case I can use the original input files and get the same error?
-Error thrown if an initial_condition parameter is provided along with an initial_from_file_var parameter for the same variable.
closes #20944
Reason
This added error check will make debugging input files easier.
Design
Previously an error was only thrown if two initial_condition parameters were supplied for the same variable. Now an error is also thrown if an initial_from_file_var is also provided.
Impact