All the extra failures are due to the gold standard not being updated after several recent PRs that change the gold standard were merged. I've set up a simpler way for me to update the gold when needed, so now it should be easier to update these faster. Re-testing on the current PRs are running now.
The latest update incorporate (hopefully) all previous comments.
I had to extend the RNG (by save and restore functions) in order to being able to resume stochastic forcing simulations in a deterministic way.
It looks great. The only thing I think might be missing is proper support for MHD/MHDCT and <3d, since both MHD methods always require Vy and Vz. (This is a rare case, of course, but useful if one wants to do, say, ambipolar diffusion) I think I caught all the bits that I know will crash, but if you could double check if the anything else will choke if GridRank <3 and Vy or Vz exist that would be grand.
I added MHDCT support and tested serial/MPI runs incl. restarts.
In addition to changing the problem initialization file, I had to make further changes as Grid_*SourceTerms.C is only called by the MUSCL solvers.
I considered to the existing Grid_AddRandomForcing to be the most appropriate place and changed it so that both types for forcing (Random and Stochastic) are supported along the same lines of code.
Please have a second look, whether I missed something there or in case you think that these should be kept separate.
@dcollins4096 , please hold off on hitting merge. I am going to regenerate the gold standard and test this PR vs. the regenerated standard. I expect it to pass - the problem with Jenkins is expected - but it's better to be safe than sorry. I will do it over the weekend if I can, but more likely Monday morning.
If someone tells me that it is okay to regenerate the gold and bump the version on jenkins, all the failures will dissappear. I sent an email/left a comment on another PR a while back (to the list or @Brian O'Shea maybe?) asking for someone to test a PR that got merged while Jenkins was down and has floating point differences that lead to all the current errors from what I can tell.
OK, following up on this PR: in the new gold standard (http://srs.slac.stanford.edu/hudson/job/enzo-dev/239/) there are 33 test failures. These are the same test failures as before, and occur only in the DrivenTurbulence3D test problem. I concur with @Philipp Grete that this is due to differences in the treatment of energy. The differences are at an acceptable level, and I am going to merge this PR momentarily.