Show for Indicator Vortex

[DanielDoehring]

I use the isentropic vortex with AMR for convergence studies a lot. One thing that bothered me all the time is this abomination of a print you get when you run the example:

Now you see this:

[github-actions]

Review checklist

This checklist is meant to assist creators of PRs (to let them know what reviewers will typically look for) and reviewers (to guide them in a structured review process). Items do not need to be checked explicitly for a PR to be eligible for merging.

Purpose and scope

• The PR has a single goal that is clear from the PR title and/or description.
• All code changes represent a single set of modifications that logically belong together.
• No more than 500 lines of code are changed or there is no obvious way to split the PR into multiple PRs.

Code quality

• The code can be understood easily.
• Newly introduced names for variables etc. are self-descriptive and consistent with existing naming conventions.
• There are no redundancies that can be removed by simple modularization/refactoring.
• There are no leftover debug statements or commented code sections.
• The code adheres to our conventions and style guide, and to the Julia guidelines.

Documentation

• New functions and types are documented with a docstring or top-level comment.
• Relevant publications are referenced in docstrings (see example for formatting).
• Inline comments are used to document longer or unusual code sections.
• Comments describe intent ("why?") and not just functionality ("what?").
• If the PR introduces a significant change or new feature, it is documented in NEWS.md with its PR number.

Testing

• The PR passes all tests.
• New or modified lines of code are covered by tests.
• New or modified tests run in less then 10 seconds.

Performance

• There are no type instabilities or memory allocations in performance-critical parts.
• If the PR intent is to improve performance, before/after time measurements are posted in the PR.

Verification

• The correctness of the code was verified using appropriate tests.
• If new equations/methods are added, a convergence test has been run and the results
  are posted in the PR.

Created with ❤️ by the Trixi.jl community.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 96.32%. Comparing base (5c9332b) to head (6c9f166).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #2060   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   96.32%   96.32%           
=======================================
  Files         470      470           
  Lines       37446    37447    +1     
=======================================
+ Hits        36069    36070    +1     
  Misses       1377     1377           

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	96.32% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

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

[benegee]

Very obvious improvement!

[ranocha]

Nice idea

[ranocha]

Do we need the summary box here? This is leaking an implementation detail into the examples/official API, so we should consider this

[DanielDoehring]

Hm not really for the "use case" indicated by the screenshots above. But if you assign a variable
indicator = TrixiExtension.IndicatorVortex(semi) in the REPL you would see this box, which I use for consistency with the other indicators.