Skip to content

GitLab

  • Projects
  • Groups
  • Snippets
  • Help
    • Loading...
  • Help
    • Help
    • Support
    • Community forum
    • Submit feedback
  • Sign in
S src
  • Project overview
    • Project overview
    • Details
    • Activity
    • Releases
  • Repository
    • Repository
    • Files
    • Commits
    • Branches
    • Tags
    • Contributors
    • Graph
    • Compare
    • Locked Files
  • Issues 61
    • Issues 61
    • List
    • Boards
    • Labels
    • Service Desk
    • Milestones
    • Iterations
  • Merge requests 3
    • Merge requests 3
  • CI/CD
    • CI/CD
    • Pipelines
    • Jobs
    • Schedules
  • Operations
    • Operations
    • Incidents
    • Environments
  • Analytics
    • Analytics
    • CI/CD
    • Code Review
    • Issue
    • Repository
    • Value Stream
  • Wiki
    • Wiki
  • Snippets
    • Snippets
  • Members
    • Members
  • Activity
  • Graph
  • Create a new issue
  • Jobs
  • Commits
  • Issue Boards
Collapse sidebar
  • OPAL
  • src
  • Issues
  • #577

Closed
Open
Created Jul 22, 2020 by ext-calvo_p@ext-calvo_pDeveloper

Unexpected results for BANDRF

Summary

Since !388 (merged) (commit 10c4aa19) the results with BANDRF simulations are unexpected

Steps to reproduce

Run single-particle simulations with the input tracking_test.in in commits 10c4aa19 and 0d2ccc73 with the following fields (Gap_18ene19.h5part, Vacio_18ene19_2mm.h5part,particulas_1_00.dat, BField_real_4T_2.dat)

What is the current bug behavior?

The tracking are completely different by a bad reading of electric fields in h5part format (I guess)

What is the expected correct behavior?

The particle tracking should be exactly the same

Relevant logs and/or screenshots

Tracking_unexpected

Possible fixes

Assignee
Assign to
OPAL 2.4.0
Milestone
OPAL 2.4.0 (Past due)
Assign milestone
Time tracking