-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 26
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
VMEC wout fixes #925
VMEC wout fixes #925
Conversation
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #925 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 94.96% 94.95% -0.01%
==========================================
Files 83 83
Lines 21005 21006 +1
==========================================
Hits 19947 19947
- Misses 1058 1059 +1
|
| benchmark_name | dt(%) | dt(s) | t_new(s) | t_old(s) |
| -------------------------------------- | ---------------------- | ---------------------- | ---------------------- | ---------------------- |
test_build_transform_fft_lowres | +2.36 +/- 13.09 | +2.17e-04 +/- 1.21e-03 | 9.44e-03 +/- 1.2e-03 | 9.22e-03 +/- 6.3e-05 |
test_build_transform_fft_midres | -1.86 +/- 1.82 | -1.67e-03 +/- 1.64e-03 | 8.84e-02 +/- 1.1e-03 | 9.01e-02 +/- 1.2e-03 |
test_build_transform_fft_highres | -0.62 +/- 1.08 | -2.88e-03 +/- 5.04e-03 | 4.62e-01 +/- 3.5e-03 | 4.65e-01 +/- 3.6e-03 |
test_equilibrium_init_lowres | -0.08 +/- 2.71 | -2.23e-04 +/- 7.35e-03 | 2.71e-01 +/- 4.7e-03 | 2.72e-01 +/- 5.6e-03 |
test_equilibrium_init_medres | -2.50 +/- 1.98 | -1.59e-02 +/- 1.25e-02 | 6.18e-01 +/- 7.7e-03 | 6.34e-01 +/- 9.9e-03 |
test_equilibrium_init_highres | -0.63 +/- 1.76 | -1.41e-02 +/- 3.97e-02 | 2.24e+00 +/- 2.7e-02 | 2.25e+00 +/- 2.9e-02 |
test_objective_compile_dshape_current | -1.44 +/- 9.73 | -5.93e-02 +/- 4.00e-01 | 4.05e+00 +/- 2.7e-01 | 4.11e+00 +/- 2.9e-01 |
test_objective_compile_atf | +0.41 +/- 6.07 | +3.41e-02 +/- 5.00e-01 | 8.27e+00 +/- 3.1e-01 | 8.24e+00 +/- 3.9e-01 |
test_objective_compute_dshape_current | -1.18 +/- 4.00 | -6.32e-05 +/- 2.15e-04 | 5.31e-03 +/- 1.4e-04 | 5.38e-03 +/- 1.6e-04 |
test_objective_compute_atf | -0.23 +/- 6.29 | -2.85e-05 +/- 7.65e-04 | 1.21e-02 +/- 5.2e-04 | 1.22e-02 +/- 5.6e-04 |
test_objective_jac_dshape_current | +3.10 +/- 8.33 | +1.46e-03 +/- 3.92e-03 | 4.86e-02 +/- 2.8e-03 | 4.71e-02 +/- 2.8e-03 |
test_objective_jac_atf | -0.39 +/- 4.59 | -9.28e-03 +/- 1.11e-01 | 2.40e+00 +/- 7.7e-02 | 2.41e+00 +/- 8.0e-02 |
test_perturb_1 | +3.72 +/- 4.29 | +5.87e-01 +/- 6.76e-01 | 1.64e+01 +/- 4.8e-01 | 1.58e+01 +/- 4.8e-01 |
test_perturb_2 | +1.92 +/- 4.30 | +4.12e-01 +/- 9.24e-01 | 2.19e+01 +/- 3.0e-01 | 2.15e+01 +/- 8.7e-01 |
test_proximal_jac_atf | +0.71 +/- 1.98 | +5.34e-02 +/- 1.49e-01 | 7.62e+00 +/- 1.3e-01 | 7.57e+00 +/- 7.3e-02 |
test_proximal_freeb_compute | +0.08 +/- 1.27 | +1.09e-04 +/- 1.63e-03 | 1.28e-01 +/- 1.2e-03 | 1.28e-01 +/- 1.1e-03 |
test_proximal_freeb_jac | -2.26 +/- 1.02 | -1.70e-01 +/- 7.68e-02 | 7.34e+00 +/- 5.1e-02 | 7.51e+00 +/- 5.7e-02 | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
See comment about combining duplicate calculations on half/full grid
desc/vmec.py
Outdated
if verbose > 0: | ||
print("Computing data") | ||
|
||
# desc throws NaN for r == 0, so we use something small to approximate it |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I thought that we have axis limits implemented for most things?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think this was left over from before we implemented the axis limits. Updated now, thanks.
buco
jcuru
(same issue as above)vp
, which is dV/ds / 4pi^2 as documented herenextcur
for the number of coils, which is hard-coded to 0 for fixed-boundary solutionsVMECIO.save
assumes the equilibrium was a fixed-boundary solution (we hard-code some outputs to their fixed-boundary values). But now that we have free-boundary working we could think about accommodating those free-boundary values (in a future PR). I think we would need to pass in the MagneticField that was used in addition to the Equilibrium.