Fix multiple bindings configuration bug in binding mode specification #329
Conversation
This file contains 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
This commit fixes the configuration of the binding mode(s) when a vector is being used to specify multiple bindings, e.g. for multiple particle types.
|
Good catch! I think we should strive for more frequent releases if bugs are fixed. |
Stumbled upon this, couldnt explain my results
Agreed; this fix also has some relevance.. and our deployment workflow will improve if we release more often |
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This PR fixes the configuration of the binding mode(s) when a vector is being used to specify multiple bindings, e.g. for multiple particle types.
Specifically, when a vector of length
>1for the binding mode (fieldIS_KINETIC) was specified, the opposite binding modes were actually configured, which is hereby fixed. The configuration for other cases i.e. single value specification was correct.I dont know if this justifies a bug fix release, what do you think @schmoelder @ronald-jaepel @lieres ?