Test Coverage

[patcpayne]

I have been working on determining the level of coverage the current test suite has on all of the parameters that are available in MAESTRO. Currently, I have produced two lists of parameters: one that includes problem specific parameters and one that excludes problem specific parameters. These are lists of all of the parameters that aren't changed from their default values in at least one of the tests in the suite. I have attached the two lists here, these reports were run with the most recent execution of the MAESTRO test suite on 2018-04-16

Out of the parameters that aren't being covered, which are important enough that we should develop tests for them?
Coverage-NoSpecific.txt
Coverage.txt

[ajnonaka]

Hi Patrick - I'm not sure how much you know about the status of MAESTRO, but we are in the middle of rewriting the code so it uses the new C++/F90 AMReX framework (instead of BoxLib --- note MAESTRO does use "AMReX" but the F_BaseLib directoy within AMReX is essentially a frozen version of the old F90 BoxLib source). You can see the progress in the AMReX-Astro/MAESTROeX git repo. Right now we have planar 2d/3d TEST_PROBLEMS/reacting_bubble, and Exec/SCIENCE/wdconvect working without AMR. I'm more inclined to focus our regression coverage efforts on the new MAESTROeX code. We haven't set one up now because we just got wdconvect "working" this week (and are still running tests to see if we implemented it correctly). Note that only a small set of options are actually implemented in MAESTROeX at the moment --- enough to actually start scientific runs but not enough if you want to compare many options. Also, note that the underlying development of BoxLib for MAESTRO has completely stopped. I think it's a reasonable goal of ours to have people only using MAESTROeX within the next 2 years. So I am inclined to hold off adding any more MAESTRO regression tests and instead begin to put together regression test suite examples for MAESTROeX. Not sure if anybody else has any thoughts on this.