ModelicaStandardLibrary
ModelicaStandardLibrary copied to clipboard
modelica
Back-port of #3291 for the pump model into MSL 3.2.3 maintenance
This PR back-ports into MSL 3.2.3 maintenance some of the changes that were made to MSL 4.0.0 in #3291, to make sure that the PumpingSystem example can be reliably initialized.
A homotopy expression and a parameter checkValveClosedInit was introduced used to manage the CheckValve=true case in the pump model. The code of the pump model is now exactly the same as in MSL 4.0.0 (check here and here), which is the combined result of applying 1d9e75ee followed by 94fea03a.
The new parameter checkValveClosedInit defaults to noHomotopy as suggested by @HansOlsson in #3291, hence the default behaviour is exactly the same as in released MSL 3.2.3, making the fix fully backwards compatible.
Then, in order to ensure the convergence in OpenModelica of the PumpingSystem example, which starts with the pump having the check valve closed, d72f405 was also applied, changing the set up of the homotopy parameter for this specific test case.
Checked with OpenModelica 1.16.0 and Dymola 2020x. The best performance is obtained when also #3599 is included.
Sorry, I am not good enough in github to understand the current status: Is the request from Thomas (update of release notes) included in the pull request?
"This branch is out-of-date with the base branch": Is it still fine to "merge pull request"?
Sorry, I am not good enough in github to understand the current status: Is the request from Thomas (update of release notes) included in the pull request?
No, not yet.
"This branch is out-of-date with the base branch": Is it still fine to "merge pull request"?
I will care about it, i.e., rebase and force-push soon.
@HansOlsson @casella, this is quite an old PR that is open even after approvals. Did this slip out somehow from earlier maintenance release?
@HansOlsson @casella, this is quite an old PR that is open even after approvals. Did this slip out somehow from earlier maintenance release?
I have no idea, but unless we are releasing a maintenance release of 3.2.3 it doesn't matter; so even if it could be merged it might be simpler to close without merging.
If milestone MSL4.0.1 was closed (w/o releasing/tagging anything), then also MSL3.2.3+maint should be closed. Basically @casella dropped the maintenance promise we aligned some years ago.
@HansOlsson @casella, this is quite an old PR that is open even after approvals. Did this slip out somehow from earlier maintenance release?
Note that my previous review comment is still valid.