Hi Matt,

Thanks for the message and suggestions.

Yes -- you need to strip off the extra zones before returning a field
from a ValidateSpatial(N) where N > 0. For instance, this means this
would be a bad definition:

@derived_field(name = "MyField1", validators=[ValidateSpatial(1)])
def _some_field(field, data):
return data["Density"]

but this would be a good one:

@derived_field(name = "MyField1", validators=[ValidateSpatial(1)])
def _some_field(field, data):
return data["Density"][1:-1,1:-1,1:-1]

I agree that this makes sense, but I actually mostly copied the shear field definition from the VorticitySquared field definition in the code, which did not observe this rule. In fact, neither does DivV. These fields return a field which is [x+2][y+2][z+2] in shape, which I found odd, but that is why I left it as it was in my code. Either way, when I make the correction to return a field of size [x][y][z], it doesn't seem to fix the problem, unfortunately. The error seems to occur prior to the field being returned, so I think that it may be an independent problem.

That's why "ShearMach" doesn't work, because the field is incorrectly
sized when it is returned, and why the error shows up the same for the
next item. I should note that what happens when your field definition
is wrapped in a ValidateSpatial is that *all* of the fields accessed
inside the field definition have the additional ghost zones.

I don't understand this. How is my entire field definition wrapped in a ValidateSpatial? I only include ValidateSpatial in the validators when I add the field--it doesn't seem to me that it is wrapping the whole thing in any of my 3 field definitions, but maybe I'm just missing this. In my ShearMach3, I simply have a list of separate validators for different fields, one ValidateSpatial with 1 ghost zone for the velocity fields, and one ValidateSpatial with 0 ghost zones for the dx and GridLevel fields. I guess my use of whitespace makes it look like they are nested, but they are not.

The "data" variable like has a .Level attribute as well, but I do not
think you should rely on it.

I'll look at this level attribute to see if this helps.

That being said, the usage of 2D data for ghost zones is mostly
unexplored. Do you have your data somewhere I can test on it?

The dataset is up at http://www.astro.columbia.edu/~chummels/DD0100.tar.gz if you want to take a look at it. It's small and a quick download.

Thanks for the help with this!

Cameron

--
Cameron Hummels

Postdoctoral Researcher

Steward Observatory

University of Arizona

http://chummels.org