Feature: t8code cubed spherical shell setups & testing t8code v2.0.0.

[jmark]

This is a follow-PR to https://github.com/trixi-framework/Trixi.jl/pull/1900.

It implements two cubed spherical shell setups and uses the latest t8code v2.0.0 release.

Closes #1921

[github-actions[bot]]

Review checklist

This checklist is meant to assist creators of PRs (to let them know what reviewers will typically look for) and reviewers (to guide them in a structured review process). Items do not need to be checked explicitly for a PR to be eligible for merging.

Purpose and scope

• [ ] The PR has a single goal that is clear from the PR title and/or description.
• [ ] All code changes represent a single set of modifications that logically belong together.
• [ ] No more than 500 lines of code are changed or there is no obvious way to split the PR into multiple PRs.

Code quality

• [ ] The code can be understood easily.
• [ ] Newly introduced names for variables etc. are self-descriptive and consistent with existing naming conventions.
• [ ] There are no redundancies that can be removed by simple modularization/refactoring.
• [ ] There are no leftover debug statements or commented code sections.
• [ ] The code adheres to our conventions and style guide, and to the Julia guidelines.

Documentation

• [ ] New functions and types are documented with a docstring or top-level comment.
• [ ] Relevant publications are referenced in docstrings (see example for formatting).
• [ ] Inline comments are used to document longer or unusual code sections.
• [ ] Comments describe intent ("why?") and not just functionality ("what?").
• [ ] If the PR introduces a significant change or new feature, it is documented in NEWS.md.

Testing

• [ ] The PR passes all tests.
• [ ] New or modified lines of code are covered by tests.
• [ ] New or modified tests run in less then 10 seconds.

Performance

• [ ] There are no type instabilities or memory allocations in performance-critical parts.
• [ ] If the PR intent is to improve performance, before/after time measurements are posted in the PR.

Verification

• [ ] The correctness of the code was verified using appropriate tests.
• [ ] If new equations/methods are added, a convergence test has been run and the results are posted in the PR.

Created with :heart: by the Trixi.jl community.

[JoshuaLampert]

There are some significant changes in the error values, e.g., here. So basically, elixir_euler_baroclinic_instability.jl doesn't work at all anymore. Do you know what's happening there, @jmark?

[JoshuaLampert]

Ah, I see. This is one of the new elixirs. So looks like there is still some bug somewhere with this elixir.

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 99.09910% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 96.37%. Comparing base (1f31fd4) to head (d6075f2). Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...de_3d_dgsem/elixir_euler_baroclinic_instability.jl	98.98%	1 Missing :warning:

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1918      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   96.36%   96.37%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         485      486       +1     
  Lines       39075    39186     +111     
==========================================
+ Hits        37654    37764     +110     
- Misses       1421     1422       +1     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	96.37% <99.10%> (+0.01%)	:arrow_up:

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[benegee]

Finally!

t8code's latest patch release v3.0.1 contains @jmark's long desired fix for the cubed sphere.

This is now ready to be reviewed and merged!

[benegee]

Thanks for your help @JoshuaLampert . I would be fine with reducing the runtime. The only argument I can think of is that we would like to reproduce the corresponding p4est test here.

[JoshuaLampert]

The only argument I can think of is that we would like to reproduce the corresponding p4est test here.

Yeah, that makes sense.