Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Periodic ghost cells usage with ParaView master (just after 5.13) #1069

Open
CharlesGueunet opened this issue Sep 27, 2024 · 5 comments
Open

Comments

@CharlesGueunet
Copy link
Contributor

CharlesGueunet commented Sep 27, 2024

Describe the bug

Calling the TTK Periodic Ghosts Generation on a distributed image data does not seems to produce the new "external ghost layer".

To Reproduce
With a paraview master, connected to a pvserver with 4 ranks

The dataset:
image
A Wavelet image data with unsymetric data, distributed as shown by the wireframe:

  • Wavelet (Whole extent to 0-10 for each)
  • Ghost Cells
  • TTK Periodic Ghosts Generation
    => From here, both outline still have the same size
  • TTK Discrete Gradient
    => The discrete gradient does not seems to be periodic, we can compare it with a discrete gradient called before the Periodic Ghosts Generation

Here is an extract ghost cells on the Periodic Ghost generation, only internal ghost cells are visible:
image

Expected behavior

  • A new layer of ghost cells to be added after the TTK Periodic Ghosts Generations
  • This layer to be visible with an extract ghost cells

System (please complete the following information):

  • OS: Gentoo
  • Compiler clang 18.1.8
  • TTK Version: dev, which is incidentally a 1.3.0
  • Paraview master
@CharlesGueunet
Copy link
Contributor Author

@julien-tierny @eve-le-guillou FYI

@eve-le-guillou
Copy link
Contributor

Hi Charles,

Thank you for pointing this out. I just tried on my machine and it works (in the sense that the ghost cells extraction shows additional ghost cells). I am on Ubuntu 20.04.6.

Which ParaView are you using? I am currently using 5.12.1.

@julien-tierny
Copy link
Collaborator

@eve-le-guillou thanks for your quick feedback!
(as a side note, you may want to upgrade to ParaView 5.13, irrespective of this issue)

@CharlesGueunet
Copy link
Contributor Author

I edited the description to add this information.
It is ParaView commit ae0120bda1cafd9e01dd1cfe477b8958a168ce56
It is indeed after the 5.13

@eve-le-guillou
Copy link
Contributor

Hi Charles,

Thank you for reporting this issue.
I am a bit busy at the moment, but I'll look into it as soon as I can.

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

No branches or pull requests

3 participants