More fixes to DirichletBC.dof_indices #3941
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
jorgensd
requested changes
Sep 28, 2025
Member
jorgensd
left a comment
jorgensd
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good to me, but let's add test to check the second constructor that I missed in the first round?
jorgensd
approved these changes
Sep 28, 2025
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
PR #3937 missed the case of subspaces -- there is a third DirichletBC constructor that does not unroll and multiply with blocksize, as the incoming dofs must be already unrolled.
I've reverted changes in
num_owned, but compute_owned_indices0from unrolled dofs always, later in the constructor.