Stop assuming a default topology?

[ali-ramadhan]

Seems like a leftover relic from a time when we only had 1 pressure solver for (Periodic, Periodic, Bounded).

Might be good to be explicit about the topology, but maybe we should wait until all 9 (or 27) topologies are usable?

Would be good to be explicit since it may be unclear whether adding walls should happen via boundary conditions or via a grid topology.

cc @whitleyv

[glwagner]

I support that. It's not really boilerplate if the topology is an intrinsic part of the problem.

[tomchor]

Not sure if I should open another issue for this, but I was trying to set-up a 2D topology like (Bounded, Flat, Bounded) but couldn't. Apparently, however, (Flat, Bounded, Bounded) works.

Is there a list of available topologies to choose from? The topology page on the docs leads me to believe that they're all implemented but (unless I'm missing something) they're not. Is that list somewhere in the docs? I couldn't find it.

Cheers!

[glwagner]

Might be best to explain that we don't recommend Flat right now too...

[navidcy]

@tomchor I believe that until https://github.com/CliMA/Oceananigans.jl/pull/1024 is resolved, Flat topologies could be problematic.

Perhaps we should resurrect https://github.com/CliMA/Oceananigans.jl/pull/1024? @ali-ramadhan, @glwagner

[glwagner]

I'm not convinced this is a good idea anymore. Defaults are useful. Thoughts?

[francispoulin]

For the inexperienced usef I think defaults are a good idea.

[glwagner]

I'm closing this issue because I'm judging that it's not of current, timely relevance to Oceananigans development. If you would like to make it a higher priority or if you think the issue was closed in error please feel free to re-open.