2010/1/14 Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>:
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 06:16:00PM +0100, Kristian Oelgaard wrote:
2010/1/14 Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>:
>Some indentation and newlines seem to need fixing in evaluate_basis.
Sure, evaluate_basis is using the old format, once _derivatives is
working I'll move to the new format and fix the code that looks ugly.
Kristian
ok.
I think we're getting pretty close to having something that sort of
works.
Have you started thinking about getting the quadrature representation
working again? Will you have time to fix it so we can make a new
release before the end of January?
I was hoping that I could finish the evaluate stuff this week or Monday at
the latest, then I'll start looking at the quadrature code.
I don't expect too many changes but I might be wrong. One problem with the
January deadline is that it doesn't leave much time for testing. There is
currently no unit test available for evaluate_basis and
evaluate_basis_derivatives which I think is a big problem since it is quite
impossible (for me) to check by simply looking at the code if the correct
thing is computed.
What I would like to have is something simple like the
simple_verify_tensor, which will evaluate all the dofs on an element at some
arbitrary coordinate on some random cell (NOT the reference cell).
The derivatives should be evaluated up to the element degree.
We don't have to use the forms in the demo directory, instead we should
just compile single elements of different type (including mixed) and degree.
It might also be a good idea to have similar tests for other functions of
e.g., dof_map which have changed a lot?
The tests should be implemented in the 'old' FFC and verified by ffc/dev
before we can release a new FFC.
