Skip to content

User defined RHS Splitting for IMEX #2518

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

Open
wants to merge 7 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

MarcoArtiano
Copy link
Contributor

@MarcoArtiano MarcoArtiano commented Aug 11, 2025

The following PR implements a way for the user to define a splitting for the RHS by calling SemidiscretizationHyperbolicSplit and defining two solver (implicit and explicit). The semidiscretize object returns a SplitODEProblem, which can be solved via an IMEX method.

See: https://docs.sciml.ai/OrdinaryDiffEq/stable/imex/IMEXBDF/, for a list of some semi-implicit solvers.

See: IMEX example for a test case example. (The example is actually not ideal, see the point below)

  • Add a better rhs splitting example
  • Check compatibility with AMR

Features:

  • Define explicit and implicit solvers ( mixed weak and flux differencing form solvers are supported)
  • Define boundary conditions for the implicit and explicit part
  • Define source terms for the implicit and explicit part
  • The splitting has to be defined as $$y_t = f_1(y) + f_2(y)$$

Copy link
Contributor

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 with 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 ❤️ by the Trixi.jl community.

Copy link

codecov bot commented Aug 11, 2025

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 0% with 191 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
⚠️ Please upload report for BASE (main@531ee91). Learn more about missing BASE report.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
src/semidiscretization/semidiscretization_split.jl 0.00% 93 Missing ⚠️
src/callbacks_step/amr.jl 0.00% 38 Missing ⚠️
...es/p4est_2d_dgsem/elixir_euler_imex_warm_bubble.jl 0.00% 37 Missing ⚠️
...est_3d_dgsem/elixir_mhd_imex_shockcapturing_amr.jl 0.00% 23 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #2518   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage        ?   96.27%           
=======================================
  Files           ?      515           
  Lines           ?    42635           
  Branches        ?        0           
=======================================
  Hits            ?    41045           
  Misses          ?     1590           
  Partials        ?        0           
Flag Coverage Δ
unittests 96.27% <0.00%> (?)

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

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@MarcoArtiano MarcoArtiano changed the title User defined RHS Splitting User defined RHS Splitting for IMEX Aug 12, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant