Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Regional matching mesh partitioning #149

Open
jeromebarre opened this issue Jun 15, 2023 · 2 comments
Open

Regional matching mesh partitioning #149

jeromebarre opened this issue Jun 15, 2023 · 2 comments
Labels
Type: Enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@jeromebarre
Copy link

jeromebarre commented Jun 15, 2023

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.

The matching mesh partitioning in all types but the cubed sphere requires grid.domain().global(). This is enforced by the ASSERT in



but not in https://github.com/ecmwf/atlas/blob/develop/src/atlas/grid/detail/partitioner/MatchingMeshPartitionerCubedSphere.cc
I don't understand why this is only allowed for cubed sphere?

This prevent for example functionality for a regional domain to be regridded (i.e. changing its resolution). For example the lambert projections are using SphericalPolygon for matching mesh. Most of the lambert projected model grid are regional, as far as I know.

Describe the solution you'd like

We could allow grid.domain().regional() in matching mesh for structured grids but checking if the coordinates of the 4 corners or the two domains are matching, this will ensure that the problem is well posed. But I am sure there must be other considerations that I am not aware of.

Describe alternatives you've considered

No response

Additional context

No response

Organisation

JCSDA

@wdeconinck
Copy link
Member

I suppose it is aborting because it is known not to work, and rather than aborting somewhere with something obscure deep down, it is already aborting at higher level.

Please create a concrete use case that you need to work, with some minimal code, and I am happy to then gauge how much work it would be to get it working.

@wdeconinck wdeconinck added the Type: Enhancement New feature or request label Jun 16, 2023
@jeromebarre
Copy link
Author

I could try to do that but I would need to extract things from the repos I am working on.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Type: Enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants