None of the thorns in WVUThorns_Diagnostics have documentation

Create issue
Issue #2469 resolved
Roland Haas created an issue

All thorns in the WVUThorns_Diagnostics arrangement are lacking a file documentation.tex and thus

Having documentation is a requirement for inclusion in the ET (http://einsteintoolkit.org/contribute.html)

* Components should be of sufficient quality to be used for peer-reviewed and published science. This includes a basic standard of software engineering, documentation of the software including algorithms and methods, tutorials and examples, and self-tests to demonstrate that the software works correctly.

The source code uses an misleading extension for C source files namely it used .C (uppercase letter “c”) which in GNU make (and Cactus) is used for C++ files so is compiled with g++ (but is not recommended since it assumes a file system that distinguishes and preserves case): https://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/html_node/Catalogue-of-Rules.html#index-_002eC None of the files seem to actually be C++ code eg VolumeIntegrals_GRMHD/src/perform_integration_sum_global.C contains void VI_GRMHD_DoSum(CCTK_ARGUMENTS) which is not typically used in C++ code (though the required extern “C” is already provided by Cactus' prototype (so that it is actually found by schedule.ccl).

Comments (20)

  1. Roland Haas reporter

    @Zach Etienne this is still the case, ie none of the thorns show up on the website. Documentation should be added even if minimal.

  2. Roland Haas reporter

    @Zach Etienne this is still the case, ie none of the thorns show up on the website. Documentation should be added even if minimal.

  3. Zach Etienne

    @Roland Haas I’ll work with my postdoc @Leonardo Werneck to get these documented (at least minimally) prior to the upcoming release. Please feel free to continue reminding me/us.

  4. Zach Etienne

    I just merged two PRs from Leo Werneck, who wrote documentation for each of the two VolumeIntegrals* thorns. Documentation for

    • particle_tracerET
    • Seed_Magnetic_Fields_BNS
    • smallbPoynET

    is still planned.

  5. Roland Haas reporter

    Is there progress on documentation for the remaining 3 thorns:

    • particle_tracerET
    • Seed_Magnetic_Fields_BNS
    • smallbPoynET

  6. Roland Haas reporter

    Is there progress on documentation for the remaining 3 thorns:

    • particle_tracerET
    • Seed_Magnetic_Fields_BNS
    • smallbPoynET

  7. Roland Haas reporter

    Is there progress on documentation for the remaining 3 thorns:

    • particle_tracerET
    • Seed_Magnetic_Fields_BNS
    • smallbPoynET

  8. Zach Etienne

    Thanks for the reminder @Roland Haas . I’ve asked Leo if he might be able to document at least one more thorn for the Nov 2021 ET release.

    Regarding smallbPoynET: Note that we have an updated version of this thorn, which is fully documented here (main github: https://github.com/zachetienne/nrpytutorial):
    https://nbviewer.org/github/zachetienne/nrpytutorial/blob/master/Tutorial-ETK_thorn-u0_smallb_Poynting.ipynb
    I am not proposing inclusion of this thorn (major update to existing thorn) into the Nov 2021 ET release.

    The more appropriate Jupyter notebook documenting the current thorn would be this one, which reviews the basic equations that are implemented:
    https://nbviewer.org/github/zachetienne/nrpytutorial/blob/master/Tutorial-u0_smallb_Poynting-Cartesian.ipynb

  9. Roland Haas reporter

    @Steven R. Brandt : see “I am not proposing inclusion of this thorn (major update to existing thorn) into the Nov 2021 ET release.”.

  10. Roland Haas reporter

    Is there progress on documentation for the remaining 3 thorns:

    • particle_tracerET
    • Seed_Magnetic_Fields_BNS

  11. Roland Haas reporter

    @Leonardo Werneck can you provide an update as to which thorns are still missing documentation after the hackathon?

  12. Leonardo Werneck

    @Roland Haas The pull requests have just been merged. This means that all of the thorns in WVUThorns_Diagnostics have documentation.

  13. Zach Etienne

    I think that’s it! @Leonardo Werneck plans to push a couple of tweaks to the documentation, but I’m not requesting pull requests on them.

  14. Log in to comment