Skip to content

Revise open boundaries #866

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

Open
wants to merge 60 commits into
base: dev
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

LasNikas
Copy link
Collaborator

@LasNikas LasNikas commented Jul 25, 2025

@LasNikas LasNikas mentioned this pull request Jul 28, 2025
2 tasks
@LasNikas LasNikas self-assigned this Jul 29, 2025
@LasNikas LasNikas added the breaking changes This change will break the public API and requires a new major release label Jul 29, 2025
svchb and others added 2 commits July 29, 2025 10:44
* rename

* format

* forgot some

* format

* naming

* forgot some more

* fix test

* incorporate review comments

* format

---------

Co-authored-by: Niklas Neher <[email protected]>
@LasNikas LasNikas changed the base branch from main to dev July 29, 2025 09:02
@LasNikas LasNikas mentioned this pull request Jul 29, 2025
7 tasks
@svchb svchb added this to the 0.4 milestone Jul 29, 2025
@LasNikas LasNikas marked this pull request as ready for review July 29, 2025 11:05
LasNikas and others added 2 commits July 31, 2025 17:00
* rename

* format

* forgot some

* format

* naming

* forgot some more

* fix test

* incorporate review comments

* format

---------

Co-authored-by: Niklas Neher <[email protected]>
@LasNikas
Copy link
Collaborator Author

LasNikas commented Aug 1, 2025

/run-gpu-tests

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
breaking changes This change will break the public API and requires a new major release
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

More descriptive names for open boundary models Change indexing approach for active_particles Call of evaluate_characteristics! is misleading
2 participants