Conversation
yungyuc
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks, @Gene0315 . This is a good starting point. I agree this is a very each patch but it may be too easy to be useful. The modification changes the outside points in a purely artificial way and one cannot predict the approach based on the understandings of the CESE method nor the boundary-condition treatment. It makes it hard to maintain (understand).
This modification changes the solution array instead of changing the way we plot the array. A more reasonable way is to just change the plotting code.
There may be follow-up work for enhancing the solution array size once the plotting is made more beautiful.
|
@j8xixo12 comments? |
Ok, I know what I did improperly. I will try to revise the code in plotting section without changing the solution data. |
|
That sounds like a good next step, @Gene0315 . When do you plan to be ready for the next review? When you are ready, please annotate the important lines like what was done in #337 (comment) and other PRs. And also leave a global comment explicitly saying that you are ready for the next review. If anything is not clear to you, go to the discord channel to ask for help. |
|
@yungyuc |
Following the issue #335
The PR sets the value at boundary point equal to the inside one.
Features: The plotting looks more reasonable than the original one.
Strength: The adjustment is simple and makes the result look nicer.
Weakness: This way is too artificial and simplified and lack of physical basis. The result shows that there is still something wrong on the boundary, especially the left boundary.