dumux issueshttps://git.iws.uni-stuttgart.de/dumux-repositories/dumux/issues2019-04-03T05:41:22Zhttps://git.iws.uni-stuttgart.de/dumux-repositories/dumux/issues/378[doc] Differentiate between test, tutorial/documented, tutorial/undocumented2019-04-03T05:41:22ZTimo Kochtimo.koch@iws.uni-stuttgart.de[doc] Differentiate between test, tutorial/documented, tutorial/undocumentedCurrently we have two general "getting started tutorials", however many of our _tests_ are also thought of tutorials as they demonstrate a certain model.
I suggest to distinguish between _tests_ in the _test_ -folder that are specifically designed to test certain features and are small/run rather fast, and _tutorials_ in the _tutorial_-folder that are designed to show a certain feature, e.g. how to use the tensor grid factory in a Richards model to refine towards the soil top. I further suggest to create two new subfolders _documented_ and _undocumented_ where all _documented tutorials_ have a detailed latex/markdown problem and feature description. In the future, a number of maybe 10 such documented tutorials would be nice. All tutorials in undocumented can potentially become documented in the future.
Of course tutorials should also tested by the automated build system.Currently we have two general "getting started tutorials", however many of our _tests_ are also thought of tutorials as they demonstrate a certain model.
I suggest to distinguish between _tests_ in the _test_ -folder that are specifically designed to test certain features and are small/run rather fast, and _tutorials_ in the _tutorial_-folder that are designed to show a certain feature, e.g. how to use the tensor grid factory in a Richards model to refine towards the soil top. I further suggest to create two new subfolders _documented_ and _undocumented_ where all _documented tutorials_ have a detailed latex/markdown problem and feature description. In the future, a number of maybe 10 such documented tutorials would be nice. All tutorials in undocumented can potentially become documented in the future.
Of course tutorials should also tested by the automated build system.https://git.iws.uni-stuttgart.de/dumux-repositories/dumux/issues/737Creating a bounding box tree for a vector of geometries2019-07-12T15:19:36ZTimo Kochtimo.koch@iws.uni-stuttgart.deCreating a bounding box tree for a vector of geometries<!--
This form is for feature requests ONLY!
If you're looking for help check out the [readme](/README.md).
-->
**Feature request**
Bounding box tree for a list of geometries without a grid
**What does this feature / why does DuMux need it**:
E.g. to intersect a polyline with a grid or some object where it would be
easier to just define the geometries instead of creating a Dune grid.
The bounding box tree is already general enough, it expects a EntitySet which only needs
to satisfy a certain subset of the interface of a Dune::GridView. So the task would be
to create a new EntitySet class which can be constructed from a vector of geometries instead
of from a grid view.<!--
This form is for feature requests ONLY!
If you're looking for help check out the [readme](/README.md).
-->
**Feature request**
Bounding box tree for a list of geometries without a grid
**What does this feature / why does DuMux need it**:
E.g. to intersect a polyline with a grid or some object where it would be
easier to just define the geometries instead of creating a Dune grid.
The bounding box tree is already general enough, it expects a EntitySet which only needs
to satisfy a certain subset of the interface of a Dune::GridView. So the task would be
to create a new EntitySet class which can be constructed from a vector of geometries instead
of from a grid view.https://git.iws.uni-stuttgart.de/dumux-repositories/dumux/issues/736Plot over line class2019-07-12T15:15:55ZTimo Kochtimo.koch@iws.uni-stuttgart.dePlot over line class<!--
This form is for feature requests ONLY!
If you're looking for help check out the [readme](/README.md).
-->
**Feature request**
Plot-over-line class
**What does this feature / why does DuMux need it**:
For post-processing it should be fairly easy to create a plot over line class that creates a user-defined number of points
along a line and evaluates the solution. (Using the bboxtree and its point search capabilities)<!--
This form is for feature requests ONLY!
If you're looking for help check out the [readme](/README.md).
-->
**Feature request**
Plot-over-line class
**What does this feature / why does DuMux need it**:
For post-processing it should be fairly easy to create a plot over line class that creates a user-defined number of points
along a line and evaluates the solution. (Using the bboxtree and its point search capabilities)https://git.iws.uni-stuttgart.de/dumux-repositories/dumux/issues/721[Navier-Stokes] Revise definition of transporting velocity on boundary for mo...2019-06-27T12:07:55ZKilian Weishauptkilian.weishaupt@iws.uni-stuttgart.de[Navier-Stokes] Revise definition of transporting velocity on boundary for momentum upwindingThe transporting velocity is always
```
const Scalar transportingVelocity = faceVars.velocityLateralInside(localSubFaceIdx);
```
However, if the own scvf lies on a boundary and a tangential slip velocity is specified, we should probably rather take this value.The transporting velocity is always
```
const Scalar transportingVelocity = faceVars.velocityLateralInside(localSubFaceIdx);
```
However, if the own scvf lies on a boundary and a tangential slip velocity is specified, we should probably rather take this value.3.1https://git.iws.uni-stuttgart.de/dumux-repositories/dumux/issues/711Access to problem quantities (like thermal conductivity) model dependent2019-06-27T09:31:31ZAlexander JaustAccess to problem quantities (like thermal conductivity) model dependentI observed that it is problem-/model-dependent how to obtain the thermal conductivity. This make it hard to reuse some of my functions with different problems/models.
- Would it be possible to unify the interface?
- Is there a (smart) way to generalize functions that should work for different problems/models?
## Short description
The interface to obtain model properties is not unique. Obtaining the thermal conductivity `lambda` looks different for different types of problems used.
- Using `SolidEnergy` model: `lambda = ThermalConductivityModel::effectiveThermalConductivity(volVars,problem.spatialParams(),element,fvGeometry,scv)`
- Using `NavierStokesNI` model: `lambda = volVars.effectiveThermalConductivity()`
In my case, this makes is hard to reuse an already implemented function. Moreover, it does not feel intuitive that the interface to obtain the conductivity differs (that much) between two physical models.
## Longer description
Kilian and me have been recently worked on a routine that constructs the temperature on a boundary. It basically gets a heat flux `Q` on the face of an element and the temperature `T_cc` at the cell center. Together with the thermal conductivity `lambda` and the distance from the cell center to the face `distance` obtain the temperature on the face `T_face` from the following formula:
```
Q = - lambda ( T_face - T_center ) / distance
=> T_face = - Q * distance / lambda + T_center
```
It has been implement once for a heat equation problem that inherits from `SolidEnergy`. In this case heat conductivity is obtained via `ThermalConductivityModel::effectiveThermalConductivity`. In my particular case it looks like that:
```c++
const Scalar lambda = ThermalConductivityModel::effectiveThermalConductivity(volVars,
problem.spatialParams(),
element,
fvGeometry,
scv);
```
Now, I wanted to reuse the function for a Navier-Stokes based problem that inherits `NavierStokesNI`. I tried reuse the function we had already written, but this fails since the heat conductivity has to be obtained via the `effectiveThermalConductivity` member function of an object of type `ElementVolumeVariables`. In my case it looks like:
```c++
const Scalar insideLambda = volVars.effectiveThermalConductivity();
```
Due to that I had to implement the same function twice which I would like to avoidI observed that it is problem-/model-dependent how to obtain the thermal conductivity. This make it hard to reuse some of my functions with different problems/models.
- Would it be possible to unify the interface?
- Is there a (smart) way to generalize functions that should work for different problems/models?
## Short description
The interface to obtain model properties is not unique. Obtaining the thermal conductivity `lambda` looks different for different types of problems used.
- Using `SolidEnergy` model: `lambda = ThermalConductivityModel::effectiveThermalConductivity(volVars,problem.spatialParams(),element,fvGeometry,scv)`
- Using `NavierStokesNI` model: `lambda = volVars.effectiveThermalConductivity()`
In my case, this makes is hard to reuse an already implemented function. Moreover, it does not feel intuitive that the interface to obtain the conductivity differs (that much) between two physical models.
## Longer description
Kilian and me have been recently worked on a routine that constructs the temperature on a boundary. It basically gets a heat flux `Q` on the face of an element and the temperature `T_cc` at the cell center. Together with the thermal conductivity `lambda` and the distance from the cell center to the face `distance` obtain the temperature on the face `T_face` from the following formula:
```
Q = - lambda ( T_face - T_center ) / distance
=> T_face = - Q * distance / lambda + T_center
```
It has been implement once for a heat equation problem that inherits from `SolidEnergy`. In this case heat conductivity is obtained via `ThermalConductivityModel::effectiveThermalConductivity`. In my particular case it looks like that:
```c++
const Scalar lambda = ThermalConductivityModel::effectiveThermalConductivity(volVars,
problem.spatialParams(),
element,
fvGeometry,
scv);
```
Now, I wanted to reuse the function for a Navier-Stokes based problem that inherits `NavierStokesNI`. I tried reuse the function we had already written, but this fails since the heat conductivity has to be obtained via the `effectiveThermalConductivity` member function of an object of type `ElementVolumeVariables`. In my case it looks like:
```c++
const Scalar insideLambda = volVars.effectiveThermalConductivity();
```
Due to that I had to implement the same function twice which I would like to avoidhttps://git.iws.uni-stuttgart.de/dumux-repositories/dumux/issues/707Generic implementation of L2-norm calculation using generic L2-projection2019-05-31T21:20:12ZTimo Kochtimo.koch@iws.uni-stuttgart.deGeneric implementation of L2-norm calculation using generic L2-projectionWith !1609 we get a generic l2-projection. In order to use it for interpolation between two arbitrary grids (arbitrary function spaces already works), we need to implement
* [x] 2d-2d intersections (!1625)
* [ ] 3d-3d intersections
That would be a great tool for convergence tests.With !1609 we get a generic l2-projection. In order to use it for interpolation between two arbitrary grids (arbitrary function spaces already works), we need to implement
* [x] 2d-2d intersections (!1625)
* [ ] 3d-3d intersections
That would be a great tool for convergence tests.https://git.iws.uni-stuttgart.de/dumux-repositories/dumux/issues/675[freeflow] Remove property NormalizePressure2019-04-02T06:11:33ZKilian Weishauptkilian.weishaupt@iws.uni-stuttgart.de[freeflow] Remove property NormalizePressureWhen enabled, all pressure related calculations for the momentum equations are done with `p - p_const`. The idea was to lower the numerical values of the pressure in the hope of decreasing numerical errors when further processing the values in for the Jacobian. However, `p - p_const` probably already introduces the same error we wanted to avoid in the first place.
The property and the pressure normalization should therefore be removed after a check of the Matrix' condition number.When enabled, all pressure related calculations for the momentum equations are done with `p - p_const`. The idea was to lower the numerical values of the pressure in the hope of decreasing numerical errors when further processing the values in for the Jacobian. However, `p - p_const` probably already introduces the same error we wanted to avoid in the first place.
The property and the pressure normalization should therefore be removed after a check of the Matrix' condition number.3.1Kilian Weishauptkilian.weishaupt@iws.uni-stuttgart.deKilian Weishauptkilian.weishaupt@iws.uni-stuttgart.dehttps://git.iws.uni-stuttgart.de/dumux-repositories/dumux/issues/661Possibly include update of Box flux variables cache2019-05-18T11:37:21ZDennis GläserPossibly include update of Box flux variables cacheThe flux variable caches for the box scheme are always assumed to be solution-independent. We should think of a way to support user-defined, solution-dependent caches.The flux variable caches for the box scheme are always assumed to be solution-independent. We should think of a way to support user-defined, solution-dependent caches.3.1https://git.iws.uni-stuttgart.de/dumux-repositories/dumux/issues/660Pass FluxVarsCache to Neumann Function2019-06-25T12:31:26ZDennis GläserPass FluxVarsCache to Neumann FunctionWe build the flux variable caches for boundary faces, but do not hand them into the Neumann function, where it could be used. For box, we actually never use the object, so it's unnecessary overhead.We build the flux variable caches for boundary faces, but do not hand them into the Neumann function, where it could be used. For box, we actually never use the object, so it's unnecessary overhead.3.1https://git.iws.uni-stuttgart.de/dumux-repositories/dumux/issues/654Allow C++172019-05-17T16:45:48ZTimo Kochtimo.koch@iws.uni-stuttgart.deAllow C++17I think quite some new features speak for allowing C++17. There are some compilers supporting all features, gcc 8 or gcc 7 (without std::filesystem), clang 8 or 5 (without std::filesystem). https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/compiler_support. However, there seems to be no cray compiler.
Who is using the newest Dumux version on a platform without C++17 support?I think quite some new features speak for allowing C++17. There are some compilers supporting all features, gcc 8 or gcc 7 (without std::filesystem), clang 8 or 5 (without std::filesystem). https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/compiler_support. However, there seems to be no cray compiler.
Who is using the newest Dumux version on a platform without C++17 support?https://git.iws.uni-stuttgart.de/dumux-repositories/dumux/issues/652Provide interface for more parallel solvers/preconditioners of ISTL2019-02-01T07:13:01ZLeopold StadlerProvide interface for more parallel solvers/preconditioners of ISTLSo far we have only the AMG-backend (parallel linear solver based on the ISTL AMG preconditioner and the ISTL BiCGSTAB solver). It would be great to add support for more preconditioners and solvers of ISTL.
The following combinations should be available:
* SSOR with BiCGSTAB
* ILU with BiCGSTAB
* ILU with GMRES
Are there any further wishes ?So far we have only the AMG-backend (parallel linear solver based on the ISTL AMG preconditioner and the ISTL BiCGSTAB solver). It would be great to add support for more preconditioners and solvers of ISTL.
The following combinations should be available:
* SSOR with BiCGSTAB
* ILU with BiCGSTAB
* ILU with GMRES
Are there any further wishes ?Leopold StadlerLeopold Stadlerhttps://git.iws.uni-stuttgart.de/dumux-repositories/dumux/issues/524(Re-)Implement CFL criterion2019-06-25T16:32:50ZTimo Kochtimo.koch@iws.uni-stuttgart.de(Re-)Implement CFL criterionAs a first step of porting the decoupled/sequential models to the new structure, it would be a good thing to implement a CFL criterion for the time step control for the current porousmediumflow models. Add good start is e.g. a CFL is e.g. the 1p_tracer test (https://git.iws.uni-stuttgart.de/dumux-repositories/dumux/tree/master/test/porousmediumflow/tracer/1ptracer) that uses an explicit Euler for the transport but currently has a constant time step that is small enough for the test. CFL would be a big improvement.
@martins Maybe you are the best to deal with this?As a first step of porting the decoupled/sequential models to the new structure, it would be a good thing to implement a CFL criterion for the time step control for the current porousmediumflow models. Add good start is e.g. a CFL is e.g. the 1p_tracer test (https://git.iws.uni-stuttgart.de/dumux-repositories/dumux/tree/master/test/porousmediumflow/tracer/1ptracer) that uses an explicit Euler for the transport but currently has a constant time step that is small enough for the test. CFL would be a big improvement.
@martins Maybe you are the best to deal with this?3.1Martin SchneiderMartin Schneiderhttps://git.iws.uni-stuttgart.de/dumux-repositories/dumux/issues/436Minimize private alias declarations and static constants?2018-02-28T13:59:35ZBernd FlemischMinimize private alias declarations and static constants?Currently, each Dumux class that takes a TypeTag as template parameter typically contains several/many private alias declarations and static constant definitions extracted from the TypeTag. This may happen hundreds of lines above the first usage of the declared names.
An alternative would be to put the declarations as close as possible to the place where they are used. If the declarations are used as function parameter / return types, one could use template parameters / auto instead.
The expected benefit would be an improved readability of the code and the avoidance of unused declarations and definitions.
In order to discuss this, I set up !741. Please have a look and share your opinions here.Currently, each Dumux class that takes a TypeTag as template parameter typically contains several/many private alias declarations and static constant definitions extracted from the TypeTag. This may happen hundreds of lines above the first usage of the declared names.
An alternative would be to put the declarations as close as possible to the place where they are used. If the declarations are used as function parameter / return types, one could use template parameters / auto instead.
The expected benefit would be an improved readability of the code and the avoidance of unused declarations and definitions.
In order to discuss this, I set up !741. Please have a look and share your opinions here.https://git.iws.uni-stuttgart.de/dumux-repositories/dumux/issues/744Unused headers2019-07-19T12:39:45ZBernd FlemischUnused headersThe following headers are currently not used in Dumux itself. Please change the table to mark the headers for something else than "delete", if you think that they should be kept. Please do so before July 26.
| header | delete | test | keep w/o test |
| -------------------------------------- |:------:|:----:|:-------------:|
| common/intrange.hh | X | | |
| discretization/basefvgridgeometry.hh | X | | |
| io/grid/cakegridcreator.hh | X | | |
| io/grid/subgridgridcreator.hh | X | | |
| material/binarycoefficients/h2o_ch4.hh | X | | |The following headers are currently not used in Dumux itself. Please change the table to mark the headers for something else than "delete", if you think that they should be kept. Please do so before July 26.
| header | delete | test | keep w/o test |
| -------------------------------------- |:------:|:----:|:-------------:|
| common/intrange.hh | X | | |
| discretization/basefvgridgeometry.hh | X | | |
| io/grid/cakegridcreator.hh | X | | |
| io/grid/subgridgridcreator.hh | X | | |
| material/binarycoefficients/h2o_ch4.hh | X | | |3.12019-07-26Bernd FlemischBernd Flemischhttps://git.iws.uni-stuttgart.de/dumux-repositories/dumux/issues/743Strongly enforced Dirichlet constraints for box (all, only multidomain) and c...2019-07-16T15:10:45ZTimo Kochtimo.koch@iws.uni-stuttgart.deStrongly enforced Dirichlet constraints for box (all, only multidomain) and cell-centered (internal, core+multidomain) not correct<!--
This form is for bug reports ONLY!
If you're looking for help check out the [readme](/README.md).
-->
**Bug report**
* For box multidomain:
If Dirichlet is set for a dof that also has a coupling derivative the entire matrix line has to be set to zero. Currently this is only done for the diagonal block. This bug might be actually in use for the boundary coupling code where this kind of incorporation is wanted, but also this is not a Dirichlet constraint (equation is not replaced by the Dirichlet constraint but by the coupling condition).
* For cell-centered (internal Dirichlet):
The Dirichlet conditions are currently enforced in the local assembler. However due to the assembly procedure the matrix rows are overwritten again later in the assembly of other elements. In order to fix this the constraints need to be either implemented after the whole matrix has been assembled (local caches cannot be reused), or (more complicated to read but maybe more efficient) they have to be incorporated during the assembly (don't write anything in rows of Dirichlet dofs)
**What happened / Problem description**:
Jacobian is corrupted.
**What you expected to happen**:
Dirichlet constraints are strongly enforced in the matrix.
**How to reproduce it (as minimally and precisely as possible)**:
The internal Dirichlet test for cell-centered.
**Anything else we need to know?**:
We should think about a better solution how and when to incorporate Dirichlet constraints.
**Environment**:
- DuMux version: master (the cell-centered part was only instroduced recently), 3.0 (box)<!--
This form is for bug reports ONLY!
If you're looking for help check out the [readme](/README.md).
-->
**Bug report**
* For box multidomain:
If Dirichlet is set for a dof that also has a coupling derivative the entire matrix line has to be set to zero. Currently this is only done for the diagonal block. This bug might be actually in use for the boundary coupling code where this kind of incorporation is wanted, but also this is not a Dirichlet constraint (equation is not replaced by the Dirichlet constraint but by the coupling condition).
* For cell-centered (internal Dirichlet):
The Dirichlet conditions are currently enforced in the local assembler. However due to the assembly procedure the matrix rows are overwritten again later in the assembly of other elements. In order to fix this the constraints need to be either implemented after the whole matrix has been assembled (local caches cannot be reused), or (more complicated to read but maybe more efficient) they have to be incorporated during the assembly (don't write anything in rows of Dirichlet dofs)
**What happened / Problem description**:
Jacobian is corrupted.
**What you expected to happen**:
Dirichlet constraints are strongly enforced in the matrix.
**How to reproduce it (as minimally and precisely as possible)**:
The internal Dirichlet test for cell-centered.
**Anything else we need to know?**:
We should think about a better solution how and when to incorporate Dirichlet constraints.
**Environment**:
- DuMux version: master (the cell-centered part was only instroduced recently), 3.0 (box)3.1https://git.iws.uni-stuttgart.de/dumux-repositories/dumux/issues/742Unused reference solutions2019-07-19T12:53:09ZBernd FlemischUnused reference solutionsThese reference solutions are currently not used:
```text
1p2ctestccmpfa-reference.vtu
1pnctestbox-00009.vtu
1pnctestcc-00009.vtu
1ptestccmpfa-reference.vtu
2cnistokes2p2cniboundarylayer-ff-reference.vtu
2cnistokes2p2cni-ff-reference.vtu
2cnistokes2p2cni-pm-reference.vtu
2cnizeroeq2p2cni-ff-reference.vtu
2cstokes2p2c-ff-reference.vtu
2czeroeq2p2c-ff-reference.vtu
2pdfm-reference.vtu
box1pncmin-00042.vtu
box2pmincdist-reference.vtu
box2pmincvol-reference.vtu
cc1pncmin-00042.vtu
ccmpfatracer-reference.vtu
el1p2c-reference.vtu
el2p-parallel-reference.vtu
el2p-reference.vtu
elasticmatrix-reference.vtu
forchheimer1p-reference.vtp
forchheimer2p-reference.vtu
generalizeddirichlet-reference.vtp
generallens_box-reference.vtu
generallens_cc-reference.vtu
generallens_sequential-reference.vtu
rosi2c-root-reference.vtp
rosi2c-soil-reference.vtu
test_adaptive2p2c2d-reference.vtu
test_adaptive2p2c3d-reference.vtu
test_ff_navierstokes_sincos_stationary-reference.vtu
test_md_boundary_darcy2p2cni_stokes1p2cni_vertical_darcy-reference.vtu
test_md_boundary_darcy2p2cni_stokes1p2cni_vertical_stokes-reference.vtu
test_md_boundary_darcy2p2c_stokes1p2c_vertical_darcy-reference.vtu
test_md_boundary_darcy2p2c_stokes1p2c_vertical_stokes-reference.vtu
```
If nobody objects in general or against individual files before July 21, I will file a merge request that deletes the (remaining) files.These reference solutions are currently not used:
```text
1p2ctestccmpfa-reference.vtu
1pnctestbox-00009.vtu
1pnctestcc-00009.vtu
1ptestccmpfa-reference.vtu
2cnistokes2p2cniboundarylayer-ff-reference.vtu
2cnistokes2p2cni-ff-reference.vtu
2cnistokes2p2cni-pm-reference.vtu
2cnizeroeq2p2cni-ff-reference.vtu
2cstokes2p2c-ff-reference.vtu
2czeroeq2p2c-ff-reference.vtu
2pdfm-reference.vtu
box1pncmin-00042.vtu
box2pmincdist-reference.vtu
box2pmincvol-reference.vtu
cc1pncmin-00042.vtu
ccmpfatracer-reference.vtu
el1p2c-reference.vtu
el2p-parallel-reference.vtu
el2p-reference.vtu
elasticmatrix-reference.vtu
forchheimer1p-reference.vtp
forchheimer2p-reference.vtu
generalizeddirichlet-reference.vtp
generallens_box-reference.vtu
generallens_cc-reference.vtu
generallens_sequential-reference.vtu
rosi2c-root-reference.vtp
rosi2c-soil-reference.vtu
test_adaptive2p2c2d-reference.vtu
test_adaptive2p2c3d-reference.vtu
test_ff_navierstokes_sincos_stationary-reference.vtu
test_md_boundary_darcy2p2cni_stokes1p2cni_vertical_darcy-reference.vtu
test_md_boundary_darcy2p2cni_stokes1p2cni_vertical_stokes-reference.vtu
test_md_boundary_darcy2p2c_stokes1p2c_vertical_darcy-reference.vtu
test_md_boundary_darcy2p2c_stokes1p2c_vertical_stokes-reference.vtu
```
If nobody objects in general or against individual files before July 21, I will file a merge request that deletes the (remaining) files.3.12019-07-21Bernd FlemischBernd Flemischhttps://git.iws.uni-stuttgart.de/dumux-repositories/dumux/issues/741BoundaryFlag for ALUGrid with Gmsh mesh file2019-07-19T14:23:41ZSamuel ScherrerBoundaryFlag for ALUGrid with Gmsh mesh fileA while ago I had problems with the `BoundaryFlag` specialization for `ALUGrid`, as described [on the mailing list](https://listserv.uni-stuttgart.de/pipermail/dumux/2019q2/002307.html)
Timo did propose a clean solution, however, this was beyond my C++ skills. Since it is also not easy to change the value of `DUNE_GRID_EXPERIMENTAL_GRID_EXTENSIONS`, would it be possible to add an additional compile time flag to the check whether the BoundaryFlag specialization for ALUGrid should be used?
That is, changing line 198 of dumux/io/grid/gridmanager_alu.hh from
```
#if DUNE_GRID_EXPERIMENTAL_GRID_EXTENSIONS
```
to
```
#if DUNE_GRID_EXPERIMENTAL_GRID_EXTENSIONS && !defined(USE_GMSH_BOUNDARY_FLAGS_WITH_ALUGRID)
```
If so, are there any naming preferences?A while ago I had problems with the `BoundaryFlag` specialization for `ALUGrid`, as described [on the mailing list](https://listserv.uni-stuttgart.de/pipermail/dumux/2019q2/002307.html)
Timo did propose a clean solution, however, this was beyond my C++ skills. Since it is also not easy to change the value of `DUNE_GRID_EXPERIMENTAL_GRID_EXTENSIONS`, would it be possible to add an additional compile time flag to the check whether the BoundaryFlag specialization for ALUGrid should be used?
That is, changing line 198 of dumux/io/grid/gridmanager_alu.hh from
```
#if DUNE_GRID_EXPERIMENTAL_GRID_EXTENSIONS
```
to
```
#if DUNE_GRID_EXPERIMENTAL_GRID_EXTENSIONS && !defined(USE_GMSH_BOUNDARY_FLAGS_WITH_ALUGRID)
```
If so, are there any naming preferences?https://git.iws.uni-stuttgart.de/dumux-repositories/dumux/issues/740Enforce constraints in fluid state or algorithm?2019-07-15T15:18:34ZBeatrix BeckerEnforce constraints in fluid state or algorithm?Currently only one mass fraction has to be set for the compositional fluid state, the other one is internally deduced from that. This only works for two component models. In general: is it a good idea that the fluid state enforces such constraints or wouldn't it be better if the algorithm took care of that? @timok suggests that the fluid state could have a function like checkSumMoleFractions(Scalar value=1.0) to be able to assert the constraint before an algorithm that has that assumption about a fluid state.Currently only one mass fraction has to be set for the compositional fluid state, the other one is internally deduced from that. This only works for two component models. In general: is it a good idea that the fluid state enforces such constraints or wouldn't it be better if the algorithm took care of that? @timok suggests that the fluid state could have a function like checkSumMoleFractions(Scalar value=1.0) to be able to assert the constraint before an algorithm that has that assumption about a fluid state.3.1https://git.iws.uni-stuttgart.de/dumux-repositories/dumux/issues/739Unit test for compositional flash2019-07-15T15:14:19ZBeatrix BeckerUnit test for compositional flashThere is none currentlyThere is none currently3.1Beatrix BeckerBeatrix Beckerhttps://git.iws.uni-stuttgart.de/dumux-repositories/dumux/issues/738ParamterFile is shown as unused parameter2019-07-14T22:01:23ZTimo Kochtimo.koch@iws.uni-stuttgart.deParamterFile is shown as unused parameterIf a parameter file is passed it is shown under unused parameters. This is confusing.If a parameter file is passed it is shown under unused parameters. This is confusing.3.1