Skip to content

correct fake_state in initActiveControl()#603

Merged
baperry2 merged 3 commits intoAMReX-Combustion:developmentfrom
QuentinMale:fake_state-FlowController
Dec 10, 2025
Merged

correct fake_state in initActiveControl()#603
baperry2 merged 3 commits intoAMReX-Combustion:developmentfrom
QuentinMale:fake_state-FlowController

Conversation

@QuentinMale
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

impossible to run in debug mode due to the incomplete declaration of fake_state in initActiveControl(), propose a solution to be able to run in debug mode with a proper declaration of fake_state variable

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Pull request overview

This PR fixes a debug mode runtime issue in the initActiveControl() function by properly initializing the fake_state Array4 object. The previous default constructor initialization was incomplete and caused failures when running in debug mode. The new initialization explicitly provides the necessary bounds and component count parameters to the Array4 constructor.

Key changes:

  • Replace default Array4 constructor with explicit parameter-based constructor
  • Add Dim3 begin and end bounds for the fake Array4 object

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

@baperry2 baperry2 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This is a bit sketchy because it gives the Array4 valid bounds when the underlying data is still null, but it's needed given the limitations of the CellData class, and we never actually access the underlying data anyway because the s_in parameter isn't used in the relevant bcnormal for TripleFlame where this gets used.

@baperry2 baperry2 merged commit 3a9f612 into AMReX-Combustion:development Dec 10, 2025
30 checks passed
terencelehmann pushed a commit to ITV-RWTH/PeleLMeX that referenced this pull request Jan 13, 2026
* Point PelePhysics to development branch for GCM

* Add compilation flag for SPRAY_GCM

* Update PelePhysics

* Update PelePhysics

* Update PelePhysics

* Revert PelePhysics to 22d8cd3

* Formatting from PelePhysics

* Rename var from PelePhysics

* Rebase PelePhysics to delete merge with development

* Remove extra rho_part from Drag.H for LMeX formatting

* merge PelePhysics AMReX-Combustion#603 into gcm-dev

* Update PelePhysics to 8f9a39f

* Update PelePhysics to AMReX-Combustion#602

* First working GCM in Pele

* Test GCM vs. PeleMP

* Update PP

* Change compile flag for GCM

* Point PP to AMReX-Combustion/PelePhysics

* Point to PP dev

* Point to latest PP dev

* Add GCM test for mixture JP8, make Validate.py more user friendly

* Python formatting

* Revert .gitmodules

* Add GCM case to CI test, requires SPRAY_GCM in CMake, cleanup RegTest/SingleDropEvap

* Update input file in Tests/CMakeLists.txt

* Update CMake for CI test

* Add input file for CI test

* Revert Tests/CMakeLists.txt

* Update PelePhysics

* Change to PELE_PHYSICS_SPRAY_GCM, point to latest PelePhysics dev
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