dolfin team mailing list archive

["Marie E. Rognes" <meg@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 05/26/2011 05:04 PM, Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote:
> 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.

I simplified your fix (using the form names for naming the forms 
directly, instead of adding more typedefs). I assume the SyFi buildbot 
goes red if anything is missing...

--
Marie