Merged
Conversation
|
Job Coverage, step Generate coverage on c0e4f9b wanted to post the following: Coverage
Warnings
This comment will be updated on new commits. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
roystgnr
force-pushed
the
fe_deprecation
branch
from
7de408a to
3752e74
Compare
roystgnr
force-pushed
the
fe_deprecation
branch
from
3752e74 to
7b404d8
Compare
jwpeterson
approved these changes
Feb 25, 2025
Member
jwpeterson
left a comment
jwpeterson
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I was going to try and test this update with our internal code, but at some point, my primary libmesh build got LIBMESH_ENABLE_DEPRECATED turned back on, so I doubt that will tell me too much. Does it matter whether this or #4076 gets merged first?
Member
Author
|
In theory the two should be independent. In practice I'm already bracing for the rebase and the merge conflict fixes. |
John added the replacements for these in 2020; it's time to ease users off the old versions.
For elements where n_dofs() depends on the specific element, we need to pass in the specific element.
The latter has to be deprecated, since without an Elem we can't make it work on polygons+polyhedra
We need to deprecate that, since it won't work on polygons+polyhedra
This should fix incompatibilities with polygons/polyhedra
And make the non-deprecated version compatible with runtime-topology elements.
Putting this in FEInterface was kind of an unintuitive decision in the first place, and now that we're adding runtime-dependent element topology like Polygons we're going to *need* a physical Elem to work with in those cases.
This should make it compatible with Polygon, etc.
This also makes one of the app options redundant
We're already beginning a big shakeup for user code so we might as well pull the bandaid off quickly.
Ripping off all the bandaids at once
libmesh_deprecated() is sometimes necessary, when one possible input is deprecated but another supported, but if *any* call to a method is deprecated we can just get rid of it completely in `--disable-deprecated` builds.
Generic explanations are a better idea here anyway
Member
Author
|
Huh; no conflicts to fix after all. If this passes CI on the first try then I'll merge. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
As with #4076, this is a fraction of the changes in #4074, split by subsystem into its own PR for easier testing and review.