Skip to content

seperate material + stress iteration caches - #43

Open
kimauth wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
ka/caching
Open

seperate material + stress iteration caches#43
kimauth wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
ka/caching

Conversation

@kimauth

@kimauth kimauth commented Feb 4, 2022

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

Counter suggestion for #42

@kimauth
kimauth requested a review from lijas February 4, 2022 16:29
@codecov-commenter

codecov-commenter commented Feb 4, 2022

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 86.95652% with 6 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 91.37%. Comparing base (4d791e9) to head (183eda5).
⚠️ Report is 22 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
src/iteration_caches.jl 76.92% 6 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main      #43      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   92.12%   91.37%   -0.76%     
==========================================
  Files          12       13       +1     
  Lines         432      452      +20     
==========================================
+ Hits          398      413      +15     
- Misses         34       39       +5     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@lijas

lijas commented Feb 5, 2022

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

I dont really see the difference with this PR and #42. It seems like CacheContainer is just an extra layer, since it is only used when plane stress is needed? So the resulting solver_cache() and plane_stress_cache() just becomes extra boilerplate. Also, the material_response(::Plastic...) seems to also get the PlateStress cache, which it will never need.

Tbh, I think it is okay if we skip making the plane stress iterations allocation free, since it seems to complicate the code to much :P

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants