Inconsistent input validation (.xinp files) regarding the "value"-attribute

[VikingScientist]

There are essentially 4 ways of specifying parameters, here illustrated with the "mode" parameter to the "eigensolver" tag.

<simulation>
  <eigensolver mode="1">
    <mode value="2">   3    </mode>
  </eigensolver>
</simulation>

and run this with the commandline parameter <myProgram> <myInputFile> -eig 4. The current ordering is that commandline takes precedence over .xinp-file parameters, and then it goes in decreasing order 3,2 and finally mode="1"which has the lowest priority. There is however varied support for this structure. For instance

<simulation>
  <discretization nGauss="1">
    <nGauss value="2">   3    </nGauss>
  </discretization>
</simulation>

only supports version 3 while

<simulation>
  <adaptive maxstep="1">
    <maxstep value="2">   3    </maxstep>
  </adaptive>
</simulation>

only supports version 2 and 3.

I'm trying to generate some .xinp-files (file generator) and was wondering what is "best practice" and what is the officially supported variants that we want to support. At the very least, I think the <nGauss>-case above should suffice as a bug, since I think version 2 should be supported.

[kmokstad]

The two latter examples above are malformed. Guess you ment to write <nGauss value="2">3</nGauss> and <maxstep value="2">3</maxstep> ?

Then I can say that in general both of these variants are supported, and the value="#" form will override the other form, if both are specified. This depends on whether the method utl::getValue is being used (see Utilities.C lines 274-292).

nGauss is an exception here, where utl::getValue is not used (and therefore a value="#" form is ignored). That is because you here you can specify two values, like <nGauss>2 3</nGauss>, meaning that a 2-point rule is to be used when integrating the tangent and residual, wheres a 3-point rule is to be used in post-processing tasks (GL2-recovery and norm integration). I thought this was already documented on the IFEM wiki?

[VikingScientist]

The two latter examples above are malformed. Guess you ment to write <nGauss value="2">3</nGauss> and 3 ?

Yes, you are quite right. Updated OP to the correct version now.

Then I can say that in general both of these variants are supported, and the value="#" form will override the other form, if both are specified

Whoops, my bad. The correct order of preference when all 4 versions is supported is 4,2,3,1 as you said.

The reason I brought this up was because I wanted a discussion around what is supported and what is recommended .xinp syntax. For the nGauss case, there is nothing wrong from an xml or c++ point of view in supporting the following syntax

<simulation>
  <discretization nGauss="2 3">
    <nGauss value="2 3">   2 3  </nGauss>
  </discretization>
</simulation>

But I do get that it is annoying to have to write utl::getValue-function for every possible variation of int/float/string/array/bool. Could we establish the following guidelines:

• <nGauss> 2 3 </nGauss> is the recommended form
• <nGauss value="2 3"> </nGauss> is supported wherever it makes sense, but is considered a hidden feature
• <discretization nGauss="2 3"> is discontinued and all tests in the official repositories using this should be updated (but you are free to use it in your local .xinp files)

[kmokstad]

The utl::getValue function is supposed to be used only when there is a single value. Therefore it is not used in the nGauss case. Morever, the form <discretization nGauss="2 3"> has neven been there for nGauss (and will never be). There are only a few tags (like <eigensolver> and <timestepping>) which support specification of parameters both as attributes on the tag itself, and via sub-tags. When it comes to writing xml-generators, I would stay away from these special cases and stick with the <tag>(value)</tag>form, which always should work.

[VikingScientist]

The thing is that I started to write an XML schema, or .xsd file. The basic idea was that this should serve triple purpose

1. Used to generate a point & click GUI for automatic .xinp-generation
2. XML verification; which is XML schemas primary function anyway
3. Documentation - a quick lookup on what valid tags & values we have for those that prefer ASCII-files to the GUI

It was during this process that I discovered that multiple ways of writing the same thing is hideously complex from an xml point of view. While I can accomplish point 2 in the 3-point list above, there is no way that the same file can be useful for point 1 and 3. I think I should be able to conjure up an xsd-file which only allows the <tag>(something)</tag>, and even go as far as <tag value="(something)"/> if (something) is a simple type: int/string/bool; i.e. not arrays or enums. However, in order to make the same file applicable for XML verification (point 2 above), then we need to update the test farm since it currently is using a lot of exotic syntax. The .xsd-file should be able to correctly accept any .xinp-file in the official repository. This would mean rewriting a lot of the tests to the recommended format of <tag>(something)</tag> as many places as possible.

As an added bonus, I think this will generate a lot nicer input-files all across the board, seeing as the current work-flow for many scientists is to copy-paste an existing .xinp-file and tweak the parameters to suite their slightly different application. If the original file is pretty, then every copy will be pretty :smile:

[VikingScientist]

Just noticed that AdvectionDiffusion is using <stabilization type="supg"/>, which adds another syntax for specifying a simple input field.

Since we are getting attention from users I think this would be a good time to look into standardizing and increasing the user-friendliness of the framework.