Creating pvtu file

[kursatyurt]

I am trying to add parallel output in case we run in parallel. VTK has native support for parallel vtu output using class vtkXMLPUnstructuredGridWriter here which automatically creates master .pvtu file and .vtu files. (Naming convention is not same as preCICE case.pvtu and ranks are case_<rank>.vtu) . However, to use this class in a parallel case vtkMPIcontroller is required and it only comes when VTK compiled with MPI support Ubuntu and Fedora repos have without MPI. Probably using this method creates lots of issues (installing VTK from source with MPI support) on the user side, and reduces usability.

The other way of doing a parallel output is writing individual meshes using the vtkXMLUnstructuredGridWriter class and creating a master file manually. It seems a bit tricky since we don't have headers of .vtu files, is there a proper way to create a master file in this case?

If the expected output is the same as the one from preCICE do we really need an output routine? Can't we directly use the output of preCICE and remove output from ASTE (yes it is a bit tricky but if we can use one functionality from a tool why do we need to reimplement it again)?

[fsimonis]

Naming convention is not same as preCICE

Actually, we could call this a bug and fix it on develop. I'll open an issue.

The other way of doing a parallel output is writing individual meshes using the vtkXMLUnstructuredGridWriter class and creating a master file manually. It seems a bit tricky since we don't have headers of .vtu files, is there a proper way to create a master file in this case?

ASTE is so simple that you can easily hardcode the main file. Checkout the VTKXMLExporter.cpp in precice.

If the expected output is the same as the one from preCICE do we really need an output routine? Can't we directly use the output of preCICE and remove output from ASTE (yes it is a bit tricky but if we can use one functionality from a tool why do we need to reimplement it again)?

I see your point, however, the output of the tool has to integrate with the rest of the tooling independent of the configuration. This simplifies name handling etc.
Letting ASTE write the results is the easiest way to achieve that.

[davidscn]

@kursatyurt is this still relevant now that we have agreed on a proper naming convention in preCICE?

[kursatyurt]

@kursatyurt is this still relevant now that we have agreed on a proper naming convention in preCICE?

Right now naming convention is the same, but we are still not creating any pvtu master file in ASTE.