Skip to content
GitLab
Projects Groups Snippets
  • /
  • Help
    • Help
    • Support
    • Community forum
    • Submit feedback
    • Contribute to GitLab
  • Register
  • Sign in
  • dumux dumux
  • Project information
    • Project information
    • Activity
    • Labels
    • Members
  • Repository
    • Repository
    • Files
    • Commits
    • Branches
    • Tags
    • Contributors
    • Graph
    • Compare
  • Issues 100
    • Issues 100
    • List
    • Boards
    • Service Desk
    • Milestones
  • Merge requests 86
    • Merge requests 86
  • CI/CD
    • CI/CD
    • Pipelines
    • Jobs
    • Schedules
  • Deployments
    • Deployments
    • Environments
    • Releases
  • Packages and registries
    • Packages and registries
    • Container Registry
  • Monitor
    • Monitor
    • Incidents
  • Analytics
    • Analytics
    • Value stream
    • CI/CD
    • Repository
  • Wiki
    • Wiki
  • Activity
  • Graph
  • Create a new issue
  • Jobs
  • Commits
  • Issue Boards
Collapse sidebar
  • dumux-repositoriesdumux-repositories
  • dumuxdumux
  • Issues
  • #834
Closed
Open
Issue created Mar 25, 2020 by Dennis Gläser@DennisGlaeserOwner

unify wettingPhaseIndex() interface

In the CompositionalFluidState, there is the interface

int wettingPhase() const { return wPhaseIdx_; }

With !1684 (merged) merged, all two-phase flow related VolumeVariables implementation introduce:

int wettingPhaseIdx() const { return wPhaseIdx; }

On the other hand, the ImmiscibleFluidState does not provide a function to wetting phase index. We should probably define a unified interface and define one place where this should be stored.

I personally would vote for wettingPhase(), and I would propose to store it in the fluid state, because I recall that for compositional models it was necessary to have it in there because the flash solvers need it.

Edited Mar 25, 2020 by Timo Koch
Assignee
Assign to
Time tracking