In this PR there is a lot of code written by @OmarDuran in an ancient version of DiSk++ that was never merged back upstream. @romainmottier please contact @OmarDuran and ask him to review this PR and confirm that he is ok with the merge. If he is ok, please ask him to put a comment below here.
Thanks.

In this PR there is a lot of code written by @OmarDuran in an ancient version of DiSk++ that was never merged back upstream. @romainmottier please contact @OmarDuran and ask him to review this PR and confirm that he is ok with the merge. If he is ok, please ask him to put a comment below here. Thanks.

@datafl4sh thank you for keeping me in the loop.

The majority of this code was written by me several years ago. While I appreciate the effort to port and extend it, the following might be needed before merging:

• A regression test using a known analytical solution;
• An energy conservation check;

@romainmottier, please update the PR description to clearly state that the core implementation originates from my earlier work and to specify the functionalities being merged. With that in place, I support the merge.

Hi @OmarDuran , @datafl4sh,

I wanted to share my thoughts regarding the regression tests you suggested. Ideally, it would be better to run them to ensure the integrity of the merged code.

However, having just started my postdoc, I won’t be able to address this immediately. I believe it would be better to integrate the code now, rather than leaving it on a branch where it might become outdated.

What do you think about it?

Hello @romainmottier ,

DiSk++ is already lacking unit tests, and it is not ideal to continue on this route. On the other hand, I perfectly understand your situation and I think that this code is worth preserving. So I'd go ahead with the integration; let's see also what @OmarDuran says.