This is not a bug. The problem is the interpretation of what boundary
means. The boundary is whatever the user specifies and it can lie in
the interior.
--
Anders
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 12:26:54PM -0000, Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote:
> Public bug reported:
>
> According to
>
> http://fenicsproject.org/documentation/dolfin/1.0.0/python/programmers-
> reference/fem/bcs/DirichletBC.html#dolfin.fem.bcs.DirichletBC
>
> "The topological approach is faster, but will only identify degrees of
> freedom that are located on a facet that is entirely on the boundary."
>
> However, this does not seem to be the case. I will attach here a code
> which changes behaviour when switching between marking all facets or all
> facets on the boundary, look for the lines:
>
> if enable_bug:
> boundaries.set_all(walldomain)
> else:
> Wall().mark(boundaries, walldomain)
>
> ** Affects: dolfin
> Importance: Undecided
> Status: New
>
This is not a bug. The problem is the interpretation of what boundary
means. The boundary is whatever the user specifies and it can lie in
the interior.
--
Anders
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 12:26:54PM -0000, Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote: fenicsproject. org/documentati on/dolfin/ 1.0.0/python/ programmers- fem/bcs/ DirichletBC. html#dolfin. fem.bcs. DirichletBC set_all( walldomain) mark(boundaries , walldomain)
> Public bug reported:
>
> According to
>
> http://
> reference/
>
> "The topological approach is faster, but will only identify degrees of
> freedom that are located on a facet that is entirely on the boundary."
>
> However, this does not seem to be the case. I will attach here a code
> which changes behaviour when switching between marking all facets or all
> facets on the boundary, look for the lines:
>
> if enable_bug:
> boundaries.
> else:
> Wall().
>
> ** Affects: dolfin
> Importance: Undecided
> Status: New
>