Skip to content

Conversation

@johnomotani
Copy link
Collaborator

@johnomotani johnomotani commented Aug 22, 2024

To generate grids with a nonorthogonal X-point but orthogonal targets, set orthogonal = False, and nonorthogonal_target_all_poloidal_spacing_range = None (or null in a YAML input file). The other nonorthogonal_target_*_poloidal_spacing_range settings should also be set to None, which is the default as long as they are not set explicitly.

  • Tests added
  • Udated manual
  • Updated doc/whats-new.md with a summary of the changes

@johnomotani johnomotani added the enhancement New feature or request label Aug 22, 2024
@johnomotani
Copy link
Collaborator Author

If this is useful, could somebody document it in the manual please? @mikekryjak?

These variables are not always defined, so skip to avoid unhelpful error.
@johnomotani johnomotani force-pushed the nonorthogonal-Xpoint branch from ef1491d to d802e50 Compare August 23, 2024 12:20
@johnomotani
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Also, once this works we should probably add an integrated test to make sure it doesn't get broken.

This allows the 'orthogonal' Sfunc to do something sensible at the
targets when it is being used there because only the X-point is
'nonorthogonal'.
@johnomotani johnomotani force-pushed the nonorthogonal-Xpoint branch from 88ef53a to 72f6900 Compare August 21, 2025 15:22
Horrible hack to allow sfunc_orthogonal to be used for the grid point
spacing at/beyond the target. The initial attempt at this broke the
default nonorthogonal grid, as in that case sfunc_orthogonal should not
extrapolate.
@johnomotani johnomotani force-pushed the nonorthogonal-Xpoint branch from 72f6900 to 8172f64 Compare August 21, 2025 15:29
@johnomotani johnomotani force-pushed the nonorthogonal-Xpoint branch from 972a9db to fdd66f6 Compare August 21, 2025 16:00
@johnomotani
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I think this is merge-able now if someone wants to review. Tests are still missing, but tests for this and a few other 'experimental' features could be left as an open issue for now, until someone has time to look into that.

@johnomotani
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I think the 'utilities' test is failing because xBOUT made a new release, but #192 hasn't been merged yet. So should be fine to ignore that and get on with merging all the completed PRs...

Copy link
Contributor

@bendudson bendudson left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks, @johnomotani !

@bendudson bendudson merged commit 5ebdc6a into master Aug 27, 2025
59 of 73 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

enhancement New feature or request

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants