General sensor postprocessor

[ffarha]

This adds a general sensor postprocessor that can capture realistically how a sensor would output signals.

Reason

In order to enable the user to place and simulate sensors.

Design

Takes into account drift, delay, noise, efficiency, uncertainty of sensors.

Impact

It adds something new. It is not a bug fix.

[GiudGiud]

linked to https://github.com/idaholab/moose/pull/25594 @harterj

[dschwen]

Thanks for the contribution. Could you please clean up the commit history (you rebased on master). Just hard reset to devel and git cherry-pick your commits. Also take a look at out code style. There are a bunch of things that jump out, like comment style (we don't do those 🧻 perforation marks 😉) and curly braces around single statement blocks.

[dschwen]

Also, we need to find a better place for this code. It is not suitable for framework IMO. A module would be a better place (e.g. the thermocouple could go u. Heat conducting).

[GiudGiud]

@harterj and I discussed it could go in misc/ Heat_transfer would work for me with an example with thermo-couples

[somu15]

Looks like this capability adds uncertainty to multiphysics simulation outputs. If so, have you taken a look at the Stochastic Tools Module in MOOSE? Would this capability better fit there?

Also, this capability needs some documentation.

[GiudGiud]

Hello

Please use git rebase origin/devel instead of git merge. We only keep merge commits on the master branch

once this is ready for review please ping us

[ffarha]

I could not find any branch named devel. The GeneralSensorPostprocessor is ready for review.

[GiudGiud]

try this

git reset --hard 23565ef6ba06e54f333202ed66e55ccb57bc77cd
git fetch origin
git rebase origin
git cherry-pick 4efb80e

[GiudGiud]

Hello

please edit the commit history to remove merge commits and use a rebase instead

thank you

[sallustius]

@ffarha add check on transient executioner and add steady-state case

[ffarha]

@GiudGiud I cherry picked 10f2a4085d46ad06099611f3de6c02840e003b43 from next to devel which is now 6bc8c12c5933e544b8648a6c0ab3aad46518f550. Does this work?

[GiudGiud]

hello

no you have to rebase. you have a few merge commits in the commit history right now

[dschwen]

To pass the pretests you need to make sure your formatting is ok, and that you reference the issue number in your commit messages.

[ffarha]

Hey @GiudGiud, the prechecks passed but all other checks are pending now.

[GiudGiud]

ok I activated them. pls ping Daniel once all his comments are good and the test suite is green

[ffarha]

i made some edits since some checks failed previously. Can you please activate the checks again? @GiudGiud

[moosebuild]

Job Documentation on 9ab60e4 wanted to post the following:

View the site here

This comment will be updated on new commits.

[moosebuild]

All jobs on 286f4ae : invalidated by @ffarha

[moosebuild]

Job Precheck on 76a2e7a wanted to post the following:

Your code requires style changes.

A patch was auto generated and copied here
You can directly apply the patch by running, in the top level of your repository:

curl -s https://mooseframework.inl.gov/docs/PRs/26870/clang_format/style.patch | git apply -v

Alternatively, with your repository up to date and in the top level of your repository:

git clang-format d76ac1a60ff0e4298f84fe8331f05c55d9948632

[moosebuild]

Job Coverage on 9ab60e4 wanted to post the following:

Framework coverage

Coverage did not change

Modules coverage

Misc

	4409da	#26870 9ab60e
	Total	Total	+/-	New
Rate	40.08%	61.70%	+21.62%	93.57%
Hits	101	261	+160	160
Misses	151	162	+11	11

Diff coverage report

Full coverage report

Full coverage reports

Reports

• framework
• chemical_reactions
• combined
• contact
• electromagnetics
• external_petsc_solver
• fluid_properties
• fsi
• functional_expansion_tools
• geochemistry
• heat_transfer
• level_set
• misc
• navier_stokes
• optimization
• peridynamics
• phase_field
• porous_flow
• ray_tracing
• rdg
• reactor
• richards
• scalar_transport
• solid_mechanics
• solid_properties
• stochastic_tools
• thermal_hydraulics
• xfem

This comment will be updated on new commits.

[ffarha]

hi @dschwen, all checks have passed for this PR. Some of the suggestions you made previously (eg densevector, dot function) does not work with my implementation (for example, dot function does a dot product of two vectors but I was looking to do was elementwise multiplication). I think the implementation is fine as it is now. But please do take a look and let me know of the next steps.

[GiudGiud]

no merge commits please.

[ffarha]

hey @GiudGiud, I made all the requested changes. Could you please check if it is okay now?

[lindsayad]

this has caused several failures on next branch testing