Adds physicsnemo.mesh, Part 2/2#1333
Merged
peterdsharpe merged 183 commits intoNVIDIA:mainfrom Feb 10, 2026
Merged
Conversation
- Added version requirement for matplotlib to ensure compatibility. - Improved docstrings for clarity, including return types for `_text_to_path`. - Updated imports to use `require_version_spec` for matplotlib. - Fixed import paths in `_group_letters` and `_winding_number` functions. - Added new procedural and surface primitives: `lumpy_sphere` and `sphere_icosahedral`. - Updated test files to skip tests if matplotlib or PyVista are not available.
- Introduced a new module `sphere_icosahedral.py` for creating a sphere by subdividing an icosahedron and projecting vertices onto the sphere surface. - Enhanced documentation with detailed descriptions, parameters, and examples for the `load` function. - Implemented error handling for invalid radius and subdivision inputs. - Ensured compatibility with existing mesh structures in the physicsnemo library.
- Replaced instances of `from_pyvista` with procedural mesh generation for consistency and improved test coverage. - Updated test cases to utilize `lumpy_sphere` and `cube_volume` for various gradient and divergence tests. - Removed unused mesh fixtures to streamline the test setup.
Contributor
|
Too many files changed for review. ( |
coreyjadams
approved these changes
Feb 9, 2026
Collaborator
coreyjadams
left a comment
coreyjadams
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ok, I have skimmed the remaining sections. I have so little recent expertise on this math that my review can't really provide benefit there. I think I have left sufficient comments to what I would have picked at (for loops, etc) but really my remaining comments will be at the following:
- making sure the public facing documentation is all incorporated into the docs. And, for some of the math heavy sections, making sure it renders properly.
- Avoiding for loops and brute-force algs wherever possible.
- Getting good test coverage. If you haven't measured, might be worth running and looking for any significant gaps?
I know I've left a huge pile of comments everywhere, and the PR is 40k LOC. This really could stand on it's own as it's own product, but here we are. Overall I think you've done good work and this will be a really powerful tool in our toolbox moving forward.
Collaborator
Author
|
Depends on #1389 |
peterdsharpe
added
the
5 - Merge After Dependencies
Collaborator
Author
|
/blossom-ci |
peterdsharpe
removed
the
5 - Merge After Dependencies
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
PhysicsNeMo Pull Request
Description
Checklist
Dependencies
Review Process
All PRs are reviewed by the PhysicsNeMo team before merging.
Depending on which files are changed, GitHub may automatically assign a maintainer for review.
We are also testing AI-based code review tools (e.g., Greptile), which may add automated comments with a confidence score.
This score reflects the AI’s assessment of merge readiness and is not a qualitative judgment of your work, nor is
it an indication that the PR will be accepted / rejected.
AI-generated feedback should be reviewed critically for usefulness.
You are not required to respond to every AI comment, but they are intended to help both authors and reviewers.
Please react to Greptile comments with 👍 or 👎 to provide feedback on their accuracy.