refactor: Reuse computeSinglePhaseFlux

[paveltomin]

No description provided.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 56.02%. Comparing base (540f606) to head (1060c7e).
Report is 88 commits behind head on develop.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop    #3283      +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage    56.00%   56.02%   +0.01%     
===========================================
  Files         1053     1053              
  Lines        89168    89123      -45     
===========================================
- Hits         49935    49927       -8     
+ Misses       39233    39196      -37     

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

---

🚨 Try these New Features:

• Flaky Tests Detection - Detect and resolve failed and flaky tests

[paveltomin]

somehow requires rebaseline due to some numerical diffs, for example:

Error: /Problem/domain/MeshBodies/mesh/meshLevels/Level0/ElementRegions/elementRegionsGroup/Domain/elementSubRegions/cb1/deltaPressure
	Arrays of types float64 and float64 have 21 values of which 10 fail both the relative and absolute tests.
		Max absolute difference is at index (np.int64(19),): value = 0.00641802791506052, base_value = 0.006416955031454563
		Max relative difference is at index (np.int64(20),): value = 0.00043659377843141556, base_value = 0.00043603498488664627
	Statistics of the q values greater than 1.0 defined by absolute tolerance: N = 4
		max = 10728.836059570312, mean = 867.0169682729812, std = 2522.583500320097
		max is at index (np.int64(19),), value = 0.00641802791506052, base_value = 0.006416955031454563
	Statistics of the q values greater than 1.0 defined by relative tolerance: N = 6
		max = 1585.5540718947793, mean = 88.88597318065965, std = 336.763511641095
		max is at index (np.int64(18),), value = 0.09559668321162462, base_value = 0.09559607692062855

[CusiniM]

why was this even different?
we should add a unitTest for this computeFlux function.

[ryar9534]

why was this even different? we should add a unitTest for this computeFlux function.

We should probably note somewhere to add the unit test, as if this gets merged I have a feeling we will forget

[rrsettgast]

@paveltomin @jhuang2601 @CusiniM
so does this get taken off the queue until a unit test is created?

[CusiniM]

@paveltomin @jhuang2601 @CusiniM so does this get taken off the queue until a unit test is created?
okay let's just add an issue.

[paveltomin]

@paveltomin @jhuang2601 @CusiniM so does this get taken off the queue until a unit test is created?

issue is here #3297

i will merge it for now