#2629: MoL_PseudoEvolution vs ANALYSIS
| Reporter: | Gabriele Bozzola |
| Status: | new |
| Milestone: | |
| Version: | |
| Type: | bug |
| Priority: | major |
| Component: |
Changes (by Gabriele Bozzola):
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 derivatives. 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 case 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