anne-glerum

Great, thanks for removing those files! There's one more empty line to remove with the diff: https://jenkins.tjhei.info/job/aspect/job/PR-4932/16/artifact/changes-test-results.diff

@tjhei the now failing test is unrelated (FPE), can this be ignored?

Hi @mfmweerdesteijn , I went through the initial_lithostatic_pressure plugin, and I didn't see anything obvious why the computed pressure wouldn't be correct in the spherical case. The chunk geometry does...

Hi @mfmweerdesteijn thank you for the additional info. > Why isn't the code consistent? These functions have ben improved on over time and have apparently not been updated everywhere. The...

Sorry for the repeated comments, that just happened, I don't know why.

Looking at the read the docs test results, there are some issues with the references to figures, some show up as numbers, some as `fig:allken_setup`. Also, some parameter names have...

I added a test in 3D, and there I noticed some differences between the surface solution and the full mesh solution. However, similar differences occur for the existing surface stress...

I agree the code duplication is not ideal. On the other hand, in our use-case, we will need both the volume and surface strain rate for example, so it wouldn't...

For our current purposes, the base variables + strain rate + stress are enough. I don't know about other people's plans though.

Hi @mfmweerdesteijn , what I think could be happening is that there is a lateral difference in the density depth profile because of the lateral difference in resolution. The density...