{"action":"opened","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/aowen87/BAR/issues/925","repository_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/aowen87/BAR","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/aowen87/BAR/issues/925/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/aowen87/BAR/issues/925/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/aowen87/BAR/issues/925/events","html_url":"https://github.com/aowen87/BAR/issues/925","id":390521815,"node_id":"MDU6SXNzdWUzOTA1MjE4MTU=","number":925,"title":"duplicate node removal and discontinuous fields","user":{"login":"aowen87","id":11658578,"node_id":"MDQ6VXNlcjExNjU4NTc4","avatar_url":"https://avatars0.githubusercontent.com/u/11658578?v=4","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/aowen87","html_url":"https://github.com/aowen87","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/aowen87/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/aowen87/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/aowen87/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/aowen87/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/aowen87/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/aowen87/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/aowen87/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/aowen87/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/aowen87/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"assignees":[],"milestone":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/aowen87/BAR/milestones/42","html_url":"https://github.com/aowen87/BAR/milestone/42","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/aowen87/BAR/milestones/42/labels","id":3894602,"node_id":"MDk6TWlsZXN0b25lMzg5NDYwMg==","number":42,"title":"2.9","description":null,"creator":{"login":"aowen87","id":11658578,"node_id":"MDQ6VXNlcjExNjU4NTc4","avatar_url":"https://avatars0.githubusercontent.com/u/11658578?v=4","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/aowen87","html_url":"https://github.com/aowen87","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/aowen87/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/aowen87/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/aowen87/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/aowen87/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/aowen87/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/aowen87/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/aowen87/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/aowen87/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/aowen87/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"open_issues":1,"closed_issues":9,"state":"open","created_at":"2018-12-13T00:15:57Z","updated_at":"2018-12-13T05:18:31Z","due_on":null,"closed_at":null},"comments":0,"created_at":"2018-12-13T05:18:31Z","updated_at":"2018-12-13T05:18:31Z","closed_at":null,"author_association":"OWNER","body":"A while back I added logic to VTK plugin to remove duplicate nodes from any ucd mesh in which every zone has its own unique nodes. That was hackish to work around an issue with CharlesX output format. I didn't think anyone would actually want duplicate nodes. Turns out at least one customer wants duplicate nodes to handle discontinuous nodal fields. Whats the right answer here. Allowing duplicate nodes for purposes of discontinuous nodal fields is a huge overkill and hurts VisIt performance internally immensely. It would be better if we allowed for discontinuous nodal fields. We could do this implicitly by adjusting logic checking for mesh node count and variable tuple counts and if they are not equal but the field's count is such that it is indicate of having a value as though each cell has its own unique (duplicate) nodes, then we can handle and render it as a discontinuous field. Or, we can consider a different type of centering AVT_NODE_CENT_DISCONTINUOUS. Or, we can add a feature to avtVarMetadata.\n\n\n\n\n\n-----------------------REDMINE MIGRATION-----------------------\nThis ticket was migrated from Redmine. As such, not all \ninformation was able to be captured in the transition. Below is\na complete record of the original redmine ticket.\n\nTicket number: 2060\nStatus: Resolved\nProject: VisIt\nTracker: Feature\nPriority: Normal\nSubject: duplicate node removal and discontinuous fields\nAssigned to: Kathleen Biagas\nCategory: -\nTarget version: 2.9\nAuthor: Mark Miller\nStart: 11/13/2014\nDue date: \n% Done: 0%\nEstimated time: \nCreated: 11/13/2014 02:15 pm\nUpdated: 12/22/2014 03:35 pm\nLikelihood: \nSeverity: \nFound in version: 2.12.3\nImpact: 3 - Medium\nExpected Use: 3 - Occasional\nOS: All\nSupport Group: Any\nDescription:\n A while back I added logic to VTK plugin to remove duplicate nodes from any ucd mesh in which every zone has its own unique nodes. That was hackish to work around an issue with CharlesX output format. I didn't think anyone would actually want duplicate nodes. Turns out at least one customer wants duplicate nodes to handle discontinuous nodal fields. Whats the right answer here. Allowing duplicate nodes for purposes of discontinuous nodal fields is a huge overkill and hurts VisIt performance internally immensely. It would be better if we allowed for discontinuous nodal fields. We could do this implicitly by adjusting logic checking for mesh node count and variable tuple counts and if they are not equal but the field's count is such that it is indicate of having a value as though each cell has its own unique (duplicate) nodes, then we can handle and render it as a discontinuous field. Or, we can consider a different type of centering AVT_NODE_CENT_DISCONTINUOUS. Or, we can add a feature to avtVarMetadata.\n\nComments:\nIf users in the wild expect to use the VTK data model in this way, I think we need to support it. If we add a VisIt specific mechanism, they would have to right a custom reader to gain the functionality they already should had access to. Cyrus Harrison wrote:If users in the wild expect to use the VTK data model in this way, I think we need to support it. If we add a VisIt specific mechanism, they would have to right a custom reader to gain the functionality they already should had access to.If we don't provide some kind of internal support for this in VisIt, then these users are subjected to loss of fucntionality wthin VisIt too. And, they needn't be. Just as we have one example of users who want to use VTK this way, we have enother example of users who don't, have generated a lot of data that way and suffer because we do not handle it. Whereas, ParaView seems to work fine for them for the same files. Shold they fix there data output? Yes, by all means. But, I think there are just as many examples of unwanted duplicate nodes as there are wanted duplicate nodes. I believe we need to support both, correctly, not by abusing the VTK data model. SVN Revision 25276Added global preference for duplicate node removal (off by default).Moved duplicate node removal code from VTK reader into Transform Manager\n"}}
{"actor":{"display_login":"aowen87"}}