In-situ visualization #0: Make Makie available in 2D VisualizationCallback
This is the first step in reintegrating @s6nistam's work on in-situ visualization.
As an alternative to Plots.jl it adds plotting with GLMakie for 2D TreeMesh setups.
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.mdwith its PR number.
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.
Codecov Report
:x: Patch coverage is 92.85714% with 3 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
:white_check_mark: Project coverage is 96.82%. Comparing base (3fdeb43) to head (a416f98).
| Files with missing lines | Patch % | Lines |
|---|---|---|
| ext/TrixiMakieExt.jl | 90.91% | 2 Missing :warning: |
| src/callbacks_step/visualization.jl | 87.50% | 1 Missing :warning: |
Additional details and impacted files
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #2225 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 96.82% 96.82%
=======================================
Files 535 536 +1
Lines 42801 42821 +20
=======================================
+ Hits 41438 41458 +20
Misses 1363 1363
| Flag | Coverage Δ | |
|---|---|---|
| unittests | 96.82% <92.86%> (+<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.
:rocket: New features to boost your workflow:
- :snowflake: Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
Nice! Looking forward to this!
Ready for review @trixi-framework/developers .
This PR involves places I have not been before (visualization, packages extensions, ...). Any feedback or hints would be highly appreciated.
I converted this to a draft PR so that nobody accidentally merges it.
Shall we include this in the breaking release scheduled for soon? If so, please update the PR accordingly.
I got stuck at some point because I was unsure about how to handle Requires.jl. However, we removed Requires.jl in the meantime, so this PR is now ready to be included in an upcoming breaking release.