[ET Trac] #2629: MoL_PseudoEvolution vs ANALYSIS

[Gabriele Bozzola]

#2629: MoL_PseudoEvolution vs ANALYSIS

 Reporter: Gabriele Bozzola
   Status: new
Milestone: 
  Version: 
     Type: bug
 Priority: major
Component: 

Consider a thorn like `NPScalars` in the canuda arrangement. 

`NPScalars` computes the Newman-Penrose grid functions in the `CCTK_ANALYSIS` bin. The operation requires taking derivative. Similarly, `LeanBSSNMoL` computes the constraints in the same bin \(this will likely be a regression I introduced in commit 80b6b1b\). 

My understanding is now that `CCTK_ANALYSIS` is not the right place where to do this because of interpolation/prolongation/notsurewhat.

Is the fix to simply replace `CCTK_ANALYSIS` with `MoL_PseudoEvolution`?

I would like to make sure that this is the considering also parameters like `compute_every`. Since these are expensive diagnostics, it is best to compute them only when they are output. Do I get the correct constraints/scalars if I compute and output them only when all the refinement levels are synced?

‌

--
Ticket URL: https://bitbucket.org/einsteintoolkit/tickets/issues/2629/mol_pseudoevolution-vs-analysis
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.einsteintoolkit.org/pipermail/trac/attachments/20220812/614ca48c/attachment.html