-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 32
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
DRAFT: area correction for when an edge is the line of constant lattitude #1120
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
@hongyuchen1030 area correction calc function is ready (computes the correction correctly - more on exposure via interface is needed), how would this be used and what interface do you require for zonal averaging? |
Have you had a chance to test the performance of this implementation? |
No, I was focussed on getting correct result at this point. |
Would you like me take a look at the performance and report back? |
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.
May you add some tests & consider adding a blurb in the "Face Area Calculations" user guide.
Check out this pull request on See visual diffs & provide feedback on Jupyter Notebooks. Powered by ReviewNB |
…ot of original triangle
…into rajeeja/area_correction
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.
Nice work.
There are a few formatting issues in the rendered notebook.
https://uxarray--1120.org.readthedocs.build/en/1120/user-guide/area_calc.html
@@ -1753,6 +1758,7 @@ def compute_face_areas( | |||
quadrature_rule: Optional[str] = "triangular", | |||
order: Optional[int] = 4, | |||
latlon: Optional[bool] = True, | |||
correct_area: Optional[bool] = False, |
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.
Should we default to True
?
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 don't think so as this is very compute intensive and will increase our testing time by a lot.
if correction != 0.0: | ||
print("AREA Before Correction", area) | ||
|
||
# TODO: Fix sign of the calculated correction? |
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.
Has this been addressed?
@@ -266,15 +266,16 @@ def test_face_areas_calculate_total_face_area_triangle(): | |||
# validate the grid | |||
assert grid_verts.validate() | |||
|
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.
Do we have any references face areas that we can compare our implementation too? Could be worth adding a test if we do.
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.
No, we don't - I'll look for one.
Co-authored-by: Philip Chmielowiec <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Philip Chmielowiec <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Philip Chmielowiec <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Philip Chmielowiec <[email protected]>
No description provided.