-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 189
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
core: Fixed ELC potential difference prefactor + test #3310
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## python #3310 +/- ##
=======================================
+ Coverage 86% 86% +<1%
=======================================
Files 536 536
Lines 25564 25564
=======================================
+ Hits 21995 22000 +5
+ Misses 3569 3564 -5
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Does it also work for mmm2d?
Yes, I fixed both. Now ELC has an independent test and mmm2d is checked against ELC. So for this particular situation there is a test now. |
bors r=RudolfWeeber |
3310: core: Fixed ELC potential difference prefactor + test r=RudolfWeeber a=fweik Description of changes: - When using ELC/MMM2d with potential boundary conditions, one of the correction factors was over-counted resulting in wrong energies. The other term in the correction in L 348 of elc.cpp also looks suspicious, but I could not find a straight forward way to test that. All of this code should only be used with the utmost caution. Co-authored-by: Florian Weik <fweik@icp.uni-stuttgart.de>
Build succeeded |
Description of changes:
of the correction factors was over-counted resulting in wrong energies.
The other term in the correction in L 348 of elc.cpp also looks suspicious,
but I could not find a straight forward way to test that. All of this code should
only be used with the utmost caution.