Skip to content

Conversation

@angranl-flex
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@benflexcompute benflexcompute marked this pull request as draft October 22, 2025 15:46
@angranl-flex angranl-flex force-pushed the angran/forceOutput branch 4 times, most recently from 0c3f55f to 48ac55a Compare October 28, 2025 16:03
@angranl-flex angranl-flex changed the base branch from main to develop October 30, 2025 14:26
@angranl-flex angranl-flex marked this pull request as ready for review October 30, 2025 14:26
@angranl-flex angranl-flex changed the base branch from develop to main November 10, 2025 19:11
@angranl-flex angranl-flex force-pushed the angran/forceOutput branch 4 times, most recently from 1c5d40e to b8854e8 Compare November 19, 2025 19:08
@angranl-flex angranl-flex marked this pull request as draft November 19, 2025 20:10
@angranl-flex angranl-flex marked this pull request as ready for review November 19, 2025 20:10
@angranl-flex angranl-flex force-pushed the angran/forceOutput branch 4 times, most recently from 3720942 to f7b6ddb Compare December 8, 2025 19:11
@benflexcompute
Copy link
Collaborator

@codex review the PR

@chatgpt-codex-connector
Copy link

To use Codex here, create a Codex account and connect to github.

@benflexcompute
Copy link
Collaborator

@codex review

Copy link

@chatgpt-codex-connector chatgpt-codex-connector bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

💡 Codex Review

if has_instance_in_list(outputs, SurfaceIntegralOutput):
process_user_variables_for_integral(outputs)
integral_output = translate_monitor_output(
outputs, SurfaceIntegralOutput, inject_surface_list_info
)

P1 Badge ForceOutput monitors are dropped from solver JSON

The translator still builds monitorOutput only from ProbeOutput and SurfaceIntegralOutput; there is no branch anywhere in get_solver_json that serializes the newly added ForceOutput monitor type (now part of MonitorOutputType). Any ForceOutput configured in SimulationParams will be silently omitted from the solver JSON, so total force coefficients and any stopping criteria based on them will never be produced.

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

  • Open a pull request for review
  • Mark a draft as ready
  • Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

or validation_info.physics_model_dict is None
or validation_info.physics_model_dict.get(model) is None
):
raise ValueError("The model does not exist in simulation params' models list.")
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think this should be similarly done as the materialization function for the text expressions. Ad-hoc deserialization will make these 2 models independent which causes issue. Will this impact anything?

…iterion when it does not exist in outputs list
…he related translator and validation unit test
# Check if required context attributes are available
if required_context:
for attr_name in required_context:
if not hasattr(param_info, attr_name) or getattr(param_info, attr_name) is None:
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The first criteria should raise. It indicates a bug.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Added ValueError and unit test.

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.

3 participants