Skip to content

updated q definition#3107

Merged
chris-ashe merged 1 commit intomainfrom
321-confusing-specification-of-q-in-input-file
Mar 18, 2024
Merged

updated q definition#3107
chris-ashe merged 1 commit intomainfrom
321-confusing-specification-of-q-in-input-file

Conversation

@chris-ashe
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

@chris-ashe chris-ashe commented Mar 18, 2024

Description

Variable descriptions have been updated and or added to give clearer definition of q

Checklist

I confirm that I have completed the following checks:

  • I have justified any large differences in the regression tests caused by this pull request in the comments.
  • I have added new tests where appropriate for the changes I have made.
  • If I have had to change any existing unit or integration tests, I have justified this change in the pull request comments.
  • If I have made documentation changes, I have checked they render correctly.
  • I have added documentation for my change, if appropriate.

@chris-ashe chris-ashe requested a review from timothy-nunn March 18, 2024 10:08
@chris-ashe chris-ashe self-assigned this Mar 18, 2024
@chris-ashe chris-ashe linked an issue Mar 18, 2024 that may be closed by this pull request
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

@timothy-nunn timothy-nunn left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I agree with #3106 that we need to improve our definition of q in PROCESS. The presence of q and q95 makes everything a little complex.

However, I also agree for the need to carefully consider how we do this in a backwards compatible way, hence why this PR should just improve the visibility of the definition without attempting to rewrite how PROCESS handles these variables.

@chris-ashe chris-ashe merged commit 5769c75 into main Mar 18, 2024
@timothy-nunn timothy-nunn deleted the 321-confusing-specification-of-q-in-input-file branch March 18, 2024 10:43
Comment thread source/fortran/input.f90
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think "near plasma edge"is a little vague.

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.

Confusing specification of q in input file

3 participants