Implicitly call update!(ch, 0) in close!(ch).

[fredrikekre]

Doesn't play nicely with #435 though...

[termi-official]

Maybe the feature conflict can be resolved by putting a reference to p into the constraint handler?

[fredrikekre]

I updated this PR a bit and intend to merge it. It now adds the call to update!(ch) in close!(ch), but also allows specifying function of the form f(x) for the common case where they don't depend on time.

[fredrikekre]

Regarding #435, if one needs something like that it can be managed by using a closure over a mutable state.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Base: 92.91% // Head: 92.92% // Increases project coverage by +0.00% :tada:

Coverage data is based on head (0bc5e29) compared to base (b2f5868). Patch coverage: 100.00% of modified lines in pull request are covered.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master     #459   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   92.91%   92.92%           
=======================================
  Files          27       27           
  Lines        4109     4111    +2     
=======================================
+ Hits         3818     3820    +2     
  Misses        291      291           

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/Dofs/ConstraintHandler.jl	95.93% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	:arrow_up:

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

:umbrella: View full report at Codecov.
:loudspeaker: Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.