From b1ef1abe6a2ff593f7a58a8bdb0d984b46c42b0f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Michael Zingale Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2024 13:45:11 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] fix CI --- Exec/science/flame_wave/ci-benchmarks/job_info_params.txt | 1 + Source/driver/_cpp_parameters | 2 +- 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/Exec/science/flame_wave/ci-benchmarks/job_info_params.txt b/Exec/science/flame_wave/ci-benchmarks/job_info_params.txt index 7d3acf86ec..c5c1a3f2af 100644 --- a/Exec/science/flame_wave/ci-benchmarks/job_info_params.txt +++ b/Exec/science/flame_wave/ci-benchmarks/job_info_params.txt @@ -64,6 +64,7 @@ castro.dual_energy_eta1 = 1 castro.dual_energy_eta2 = 0.0001 castro.use_pslope = 0 + castro.ppm_well_balanced = 0 castro.pslope_cutoff_density = -1e+20 castro.limit_fluxes_on_small_dens = 0 castro.speed_limit = 0 diff --git a/Source/driver/_cpp_parameters b/Source/driver/_cpp_parameters index 8a2eb146d2..a7bed8b17e 100644 --- a/Source/driver/_cpp_parameters +++ b/Source/driver/_cpp_parameters @@ -161,7 +161,7 @@ dual_energy_eta2 Real 1.0e-4 # does well with HSE use_pslope bool 0 -# for PPM, do we only use the perturbational pressure in the charactersitic +# for PPM, do we only use the perturbational pressure in the characteristic # tracing? This is more indepth than the simple `use_pslope` approach. ppm_well_balanced bool 0