Close #1688 : Transform the moving window velocity to its boosted-frame value.

[steelan]

Source/Utils/WarpXMovingWindow.cpp : Transform moving_window_v to that in the boosted frame (moving_window_v-beta_boost*c)/(1-moving_window_v*beta_boost/c).

Examples/Tests/moving_window_boost : A simple test gives the moving window velocity in the boosted frame.

[ax3l]

Hi @steelan, thank you for your first contribution to WarpX!

We will assign a reviewer from our team to take a look and iterate with you on your changes.

Can you in the meantime please add a detailed pull request description, outlining what you try to achieve and how?
Update: Oh, is this related to #1688? Then just linking this in the PR description is clear enough :)

Thank you already and again welcome ✨

[ax3l]

I think we could write an additional line here, comparing the value in vv with an expected value (within an epsilon range) and returning a non-zero exit code with sys.exit(1) in case the value does not match.

That way, we can verify the test without manual intervention.

[RemiLehe]

Thanks a lot for this PR!
The changes to WarpX itself look good. Could you add some more explanations in the file that defines the automated test? Thanks!

[RemiLehe]

Could add a few lines of comments here, in order to explain what the tests does, and what it is checking at the end of the simulation?

[RemiLehe]

After more discussion within the WarpX team, we think that an automated test is not necessarily needed for this feature.
Since @steelan tested this by hand, I think that we can merge as is.

[steelan]

I agree. This feature is intrinsic so a test is not necessary. Thanks for merging it.

…

On Wed 10. Feb 2021 at 23:13, Remi Lehe ***@***.***> wrote: After more discussion within the WarpX team, we think that an automated test is not necessarily needed for this feature. Since @steelan <https://github.com/steelan> tested this by hand, I think that we can merge as is. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#1700 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEGUJTHV3OV4ZM5PCLMFA4DS6MAG7ANCNFSM4XM4OMYQ> .

[steelan]

Sorry I forgot to mention it is related to #1688.

…

On Wed 10. Feb 2021 at 22:08, Axel Huebl ***@***.***> wrote: ***@***.**** commented on this pull request. ------------------------------ In Examples/Tests/moving_window_boost/moving_window_v_boost.py <#1700 (comment)>: > +kk = 0 +fn = './diags/'+dlist[kk] +print(fn) +ds=yt.load(fn) +t1=ds.current_time.v[()] +z1max=ds.domain_right_edge.v[2] + +kk = 1 +fn = './diags/'+dlist[kk] +print(fn) +ds=yt.load(fn) +t2=ds.current_time.v[()] +z2max=ds.domain_right_edge.v[2] + +vv=(z2max-z1max)/(t2-t1)/299792458. +print('moving_window_v in boosted frame =', vv) I think we could write an additional line here, comparing the value in vv with an expected value (within an epsilon range) and returning a non-zero exit code with sys.exit(1) in case the value does not match. That way, we can verify the test without manual intervention. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#1700 (review)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEGUJTG3I3VXCF4KHTCVHRTS6LYTHANCNFSM4XM4OMYQ> .