Feature element boundary [3/3]

[holke]

Closes #1630

Describe your changes here:

Implemented a function to check whether a leaf element is at the domain boundary or not.
We need to take special care with forests with holes, since these forests have inner boundaries.

All these boxes must be checked by the reviewers before merging the pull request:

As a reviewer please read through all the code lines and make sure that the code is fully understood, bug free, well-documented and well-structured.

General

• The reviewer executed the new code features at least once and checked the results manually

• The code follows the t8code coding guidelines

• New source/header files are properly added to the Makefiles

• The code is well documented

• All function declarations, structs/classes and their members have a proper doxygen documentation

• All new algorithms and data structures are sufficiently optimal in terms of memory and runtime (If this should be merged, but there is still potential for optimization, create a new issue)

Tests

• The code is covered in an existing or new test case using Google Test

Github action

• The code compiles without warning in debugging and release mode, with and without MPI (this should be executed automatically in a github action)

• All tests pass (in various configurations, this should be executed automatically in a github action)

  If the Pull request introduces code that is not covered by the github action (for example coupling with a new library):

  • Should this use case be added to the github action?
  • If not, does the specific use case compile and all tests pass (check manually)

Scripts and Wiki

• If a new directory with source-files is added, it must be covered by the script/find_all_source_files.scp to check the indentation of these files.
• If this PR introduces a new feature, it must be covered in an example/tutorial and a Wiki article.

Licence

• The author added a BSD statement to doc/ (or already has one)

[holke]

Ready for review - i added a test case.

[lukasdreyer]

Please parameterize this test, so that all scheme collections can be tested, once the standalone scheme with types is available.
Or ask @ole-alb to do so, he has done this a few times.

[holke]

Done

[lukasdreyer]

I think our current convention is to mark passed-by-value variables as const in header and implementation, if they are not adjusted inside the function.

I am unsure about the advantages of including the const in the header, but please include it at least in the implementation

[holke]

i included it in the header and the implementation.

[holke]

Should be finished.
I currently cannot verify via the CI since the package update step fails with a 404 error.
Is probably resolved in a few hours.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 94.44444% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 78.29%. Comparing base (fffd06c) to head (b292f17).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/t8_forest/t8_forest.cxx	94.44%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1081      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   78.27%   78.29%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         114      114              
  Lines       19101    19119      +18     
==========================================
+ Hits        14952    14969      +17     
- Misses       4149     4150       +1     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[holke]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 94.73684% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 74.04%. Comparing base (dfaecea) to head (cf4057e).
Report is 4 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
src/t8_forest/t8_forest.cxx 94.73% 1 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.
🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

This is the line that is not covered by tests:

SC_ABORT ("This forest has holes and a computation of boundary elements is not supported. Once "
             "https://github.com/DLR-AMR/t8code/issues/825 is resolved, the function will be available.\n");

Since it is a) hard to test at all and b) quite obvious that this line does what it says, i believe we do not need to test it.

[holke]

Merged with main.
Used the new function in the geometry example where we have an adapt callback that refines boundary elements.s