dumux merge requestshttps://git.iws.uni-stuttgart.de/dumux-repositories/dumux/-/merge_requests2024-02-09T07:57:39Zhttps://git.iws.uni-stuttgart.de/dumux-repositories/dumux/-/merge_requests/3754Draft: cleanup/smallCleanups2024-02-09T07:57:39ZKai WendelDraft: cleanup/smallCleanupsAs mentioned in [1346](https://git.iws.uni-stuttgart.de/dumux-repositories/dumux/-/issues/1346) several things should be improved in the documentation.
In this branch, a large part is concerned with fixing spelling mistakes. Besides this...As mentioned in [1346](https://git.iws.uni-stuttgart.de/dumux-repositories/dumux/-/issues/1346) several things should be improved in the documentation.
In this branch, a large part is concerned with fixing spelling mistakes. Besides this, some obviously useless code parts were removed.
Some _TODO_-comments were removed, as it seems like that the task referred to is done, but I was not sure about it.
Also in one test (channel flow) an additional comment was added, which could be useful (see commit [05b5753a](https://git.iws.uni-stuttgart.de/dumux-repositories/dumux/-/commit/05b5753af0f1aa4bfd289278d33af45d1f72ee96)
This merge request is also declared as **draft** as I would expect several commits could cause some discussions, as the proposed changes may bring some unexpected implications.
Note also, that the changes are nearly all limited to the `freeflow` part of DuMux.Kai WendelKai Wendelhttps://git.iws.uni-stuttgart.de/dumux-repositories/dumux/-/merge_requests/3173WIP: encapsulate operations in the volvars update method2023-09-27T16:15:46ZNed ColtmanWIP: encapsulate operations in the volvars update method<!--
Thanks for considering to open a merge request!
Before asking for a review of your MR, please read the [contributing guidelines](/CONTRIBUTING.md)
-->
**What this MR does / why does DuMux need it**:
This merge request should remo...<!--
Thanks for considering to open a merge request!
Before asking for a review of your MR, please read the [contributing guidelines](/CONTRIBUTING.md)
-->
**What this MR does / why does DuMux need it**:
This merge request should remove duplicated code often seen in the volvars' update functions. This issue is outlined in #814.
<!--
Is there a corresponding issue? Add "Fixes hashtag issuenumber" which will automatically close the issue when this MR is merged. Add "Related to hashtag issuenumber" if it's related but doesn't fix the issue completely.
-->
**Notes for the reviewer**
@tufan, @nedc, @hanchuan, @yue
**Question: **
does it make sense to add new headers to the dumux/material/constraintsolvers/ directory, or would another location make more sense?
<!--
Keep the following TODO list in the merge request description for documentation.
Bullet points marked with _(if not applicable remove)_ may be removed.
-->
Before you request a review from someone, make sure to revise the following points:
- [ ] does the new code follow the [style guide](doc/styleguide.md)?
- [ ] do the test pipelines pass? (see guide on [how to run pipelines for a merge request](https://git.iws.uni-stuttgart.de/dumux-repositories/dumux/-/wikis/Running-test-pipelines-for-merge-requests))
- [x] is the code you changed and/or the new code you wrote covered in the test suite? (if not, extend the existing tests or write new ones)
- [ ] does your change affect public interfaces or behavior, or, does it introduce a new feature? If so, document the change in `CHANGELOG.md`.
- [ ] is the list of the header includes complete? ("include what you use")
- [x] all files have to end with a `\n` character. Make sure there is no `\ No newline at end of file` comment in "Changes" of this MR.
<!--
The following aspects might also come up during review:
* Does the change reduce the performance of the code (more CPU time or more memory) and is this justified by the benefits
* Does the change improve the performance? (if yes, add this aspect to the MR description)
* Is the code is a gross violation of programming best practices such as DRY (don't repeat yourself / code duplication, see https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%E2%80%99t_repeat_yourself, the SOLID principles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOLID), or the C++ Core Guidelines (https://isocpp.github.io/CppCoreGuidelines/CppCoreGuidelines)?
* Is the code well-documented, concise, easily readable? (e.g. variables are well-named, the logic is split into small & well-named functions)
-->3.9