qbmm bug fix

[hyeoksu-lee]

User description

Description

This PR fixes a bug in QBMM module. There are missing Re_inv in coeffs with indices 22 and 23. I found this bug based on dimensional analysis and @anandrdbz confirmed this by directly expanding out the equation.

Test suites failed with corrected form are also updated in this PR.

Type of change

Please delete options that are not relevant.

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Something else

Scope

• This PR comprises a set of related changes with a common goal

If you cannot check the above box, please split your PR into multiple PRs that each have a common goal.

How Has This Been Tested?

• What computers and compilers did you use to test this: MacBook M4 Pro

---

PR Type

Bug fix

---

Description

• Fix missing Re_inv terms in QBMM coefficients

• Update test suite golden files for corrected equations

---

Diagram Walkthrough

flowchart LR
  A["QBMM coefficients"] --> B["Add Re_inv to coeffs[22,23]"]
  B --> C["Update test golden files"]

Loading

File Walkthrough

	Relevant files
Bug fix	1 files m_qbmm.fpp Add missing Re_inv terms to coefficients                                  +4/-4
Tests	10 files golden-metadata.txt Update test metadata for corrected QBMM                                    +42/-77  golden-metadata.txt Update test metadata for corrected QBMM                                    +39/-102 golden-metadata.txt Update test metadata for corrected QBMM                                    +38/-101 golden-metadata.txt Update test metadata for corrected QBMM                                    +37/-100 golden-metadata.txt Update test metadata for corrected QBMM                                    +36/-99  golden-metadata.txt Update test metadata for corrected QBMM                                    +37/-100 golden-metadata.txt Update test metadata for corrected QBMM                                    +36/-99  golden-metadata.txt Update test metadata for corrected QBMM                                    +78/-44  golden-metadata.txt Update test metadata for corrected QBMM                                    +70/-36  golden-metadata.txt Update test metadata for corrected QBMM                                    +70/-36
Additional files	10 files golden.txt +6/-6      golden.txt +8/-8      golden.txt +45/-45  golden.txt +31/-31  golden.txt +14/-14  golden.txt +20/-20  golden.txt +20/-20  golden.txt +32/-32  golden.txt +32/-32  golden.txt +66/-66

---

[qodo-code-review]

PR Reviewer Guide 🔍

Here are some key observations to aid the review process:

⏱️ Estimated effort to review: 2 🔵🔵⚪⚪⚪

🧪 PR contains tests

🔒 No security concerns identified

⚡ Recommended focus areas for review Code Duplication The same fix is applied to two identical code blocks at lines 611-612 and 682-683. This suggests potential code duplication that could be refactored to reduce maintenance burden. coeffs(22, i1, i2) = -i2*4._wp*Re_inv/(rho*rho*c) coeffs(23, i1, i2) = -i2*4._wp*Re_inv/(rho*rho*c*c) coeffs(24, i1, i2) = i2*16._wp*Re_inv*Re_inv/(rho*rho*c) if (.not. f_is_default(Web)) then coeffs(25, i1, i2) = i2*8._wp*Re_inv/Web/(rho*rho*c) end if coeffs(26, i1, i2) = -12._wp*i2*gam*Re_inv/(rho*rho*c*c) end if coeffs(27, i1, i2) = 3._wp*i2*gam*R_v*Tw/(c*rho) coeffs(28, i1, i2) = 3._wp*i2*gam*R_v*Tw/(c*c*rho) if (.not. f_is_default(Re_inv)) then coeffs(29, i1, i2) = 12._wp*i2*gam*R_v*Tw*Re_inv/(rho*rho*c*c) end if coeffs(30, i1, i2) = 3._wp*i2*gam/(c*rho) coeffs(31, i1, i2) = 3._wp*i2*gam/(c*c*rho) if (.not. f_is_default(Re_inv)) then coeffs(32, i1, i2) = 12._wp*i2*gam*Re_inv/(rho*rho*c*c) end if end if end if end do; end do end subroutine s_coeff_nonpoly !Coefficient array for polytropic model (pb for each R0 bin accounted for in wght_pb) pure subroutine s_coeff(pres, rho, c, coeffs) $:GPU_ROUTINE(function_name='s_coeff',parallelism='[seq]', & & cray_inline=True) real(wp), intent(in) :: pres, rho, c real(wp), dimension(nterms, 0:2, 0:2), intent(out) :: coeffs integer :: i1, i2 coeffs = 0._wp do i2 = 0, 2; do i1 = 0, 2 if ((i1 + i2) <= 2) then if (bubble_model == 3) then ! RPE coeffs(1, i1, i2) = -1._wp*i2*pres/rho coeffs(2, i1, i2) = -3._wp*i2/2._wp coeffs(3, i1, i2) = i2/rho coeffs(4, i1, i2) = i1 if (.not. f_is_default(Re_inv)) coeffs(5, i1, i2) = -4._wp*i2*Re_inv/rho if (.not. f_is_default(Web)) coeffs(6, i1, i2) = -2._wp*i2/Web/rho coeffs(7, i1, i2) = i2*pv/rho else if (bubble_model == 2) then ! KM with approximation of 1/(1-V/C) = 1+V/C coeffs(1, i1, i2) = -3._wp*i2/2._wp coeffs(2, i1, i2) = -i2/c coeffs(3, i1, i2) = i2/(2._wp*c*c) coeffs(4, i1, i2) = -i2*pres/rho coeffs(5, i1, i2) = -2._wp*i2*pres/(c*rho) coeffs(6, i1, i2) = -i2*pres/(c*c*rho) coeffs(7, i1, i2) = i2/rho coeffs(8, i1, i2) = 2._wp*i2/(c*rho) coeffs(9, i1, i2) = i2/(c*c*rho) coeffs(10, i1, i2) = -3._wp*i2*gam/(c*rho) coeffs(11, i1, i2) = -3._wp*i2*gam/(c*c*rho) coeffs(12, i1, i2) = i1 coeffs(13, i1, i2) = i2*(pv)/rho coeffs(14, i1, i2) = 2._wp*i2*(pv)/(c*rho) coeffs(15, i1, i2) = i2*(pv)/(c*c*rho) if (.not. f_is_default(Re_inv)) coeffs(16, i1, i2) = -i2*4._wp*Re_inv/rho if (.not. f_is_default(Web)) coeffs(17, i1, i2) = -i2*2._wp/Web/rho if (.not. f_is_default(Re_inv)) then coeffs(18, i1, i2) = i2*6._wp*Re_inv/(rho*c) coeffs(19, i1, i2) = -i2*2._wp*Re_inv/(rho*c*c) coeffs(20, i1, i2) = i2*4._wp*pres*Re_inv/(rho*rho*c) coeffs(21, i1, i2) = i2*4._wp*pres*Re_inv/(rho*rho*c*c) coeffs(22, i1, i2) = -i2*4._wp*Re_inv/(rho*rho*c) coeffs(23, i1, i2) = -i2*4._wp*Re_inv/(rho*rho*c*c)

[qodo-code-review]

PR Code Suggestions ✨

No code suggestions found for the PR.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 0% with 4 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 43.23%. Comparing base (e56d6dc) to head (cfb50a0).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/simulation/m_qbmm.fpp	0.00%	4 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master     #975   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   43.23%   43.23%           
=======================================
  Files          70       70           
  Lines       20109    20109           
  Branches     2513     2513           
=======================================
  Hits         8695     8695           
  Misses       9877     9877           
  Partials     1537     1537           

☔ 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.

[sbryngelson]

good find, thanks! we should put a markdown table or something somewhere on how these are formed/where they come from

[hyeoksu-lee]

@sbryngelson I totally agree. I couldn't find any documentation about its formation, so I couldn't derive it from the equations myself.

[anandrdbz]

It comes from binomial expansion involving 2 terms, but I'll try to document it