dolfin team mailing list archive

[Martin Sandve Alnæs <martinal@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 25 May 2011 18:19, Marie E. Rognes <meg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 05/25/2011 05:01 PM, Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote:
>>
>> There has been a regression in the feature set of dolfin_utils, and I
>> cannot see in the bzr log any sign of this being intentional.
>
>
> If you are referring to the wrapper code generation (which I assume you
> are), yes, it was heavily refactored in the spring. No features were
> intentionally removed; however, I did not emphasize keeping features that
> didn't seem used.
>
>>
>> Form names are ignored, numbers being used instead to name classes
>> "Form_0" instead of "Form_a" etc.
>>
>> I find the Form_name naming much more useful than Form_0, and that's
>> why there is form name input in the first place.
>>
>
> This might very well be a bug rather than an intentional removal.
>
>
>> But the names are still used in the typedef generation, so I'm
>> guessing ffc doesn't use the form name feature at all?
>
>
> Probably not. All the generated demo form files for DOLFIN were identical
> before and after the rewrite.
>
> Could you add a test for the case(s) you are interested in?

Didn't get around to this today.

The test directories in dolfin are rather sparse,
for example the fem/ unittest folder is empty.
Where am I supposed to place new tests?

All the sfc demos are now functional again in the latest
dev version and some of the cpp ones use this feature.

Martin