[pad]

Hello,

I need to calculate massflow at certain patches for which I use libsimpleFunctionObjects.so.

However, when I specify the function object to be e.g.

_massflow
{
type patchMassFlow;
functionObjectLibs ("libsimpleFunctionObjects.so");
verbose true;
patches
(
inflow
ami_21_30
ami_40_31
outflow
ami_31_40
ami_30_21
);
factor 3600.0;
}

the data will be saved in a folder named patchMassFlows__massflow. Is there a way to specify that patchMassFlows_ should not be included in the name?

It might seem to be a small problem but my postprocessing script relies on every functionObject to be saved under _<NAME>.

Regards
Per

[gschaider]

Originally Posted by pad

Hello,

I need to calculate massflow at certain patches for which I use libsimpleFunctionObjects.so.

However, when I specify the function object to be e.g.

_massflow
{
type patchMassFlow;
functionObjectLibs ("libsimpleFunctionObjects.so");
verbose true;
patches
(
inflow
ami_21_30
ami_40_31
outflow
ami_31_40
ami_30_21
);
factor 3600.0;
}

the data will be saved in a folder named patchMassFlows__massflow. Is there a way to specify that patchMassFlows_ should not be included in the name?

It might seem to be a small problem but my postprocessing script relies on every functionObject to be saved under _<NAME>.

Regards
Per

Currently the hardcoded behaviour (to change it you'd have to go to the source) of the simpleFunctionObjects that write data is to compose the folder name from the type name and the FO-name. To make matters worse the latest release writes these folders to a sub-folder "postprocessing" (convention since OF 2.2)

Short answer: No

[pad]

Hi Bernhard,

Thank you for your reply.

I don't like to modify the source code unless absolutely necessary so I guess for now I will modify my postprocessing scripts slightly.

Is there any particular reason for adding the typename in front of the FO name as this doesn't seem to be standard OF behaviour (at least in 2.1)? Or have I misunderstood something here?

Thanks again...

[gschaider]

Originally Posted by pad

Hi Bernhard,

Thank you for your reply.

I don't like to modify the source code unless absolutely necessary so I guess for now I will modify my postprocessing scripts slightly.

Is there any particular reason for adding the typename in front of the FO name as this doesn't seem to be standard OF behaviour (at least in 2.1)? Or have I misunderstood something here?

Thanks again...

Well. Reason. Similar to yours:
- Scripts. Mine say "Ah. 'patchMassFlow_*'. I know how to handle that"
- It is easier to remove files. "rm patch*" throws away all the patch-stuff. I don't have to look around "Err. 'fooFlow' is what? Ah. patchMassFlow. OK. Let it go"

So basically the types were added to the directory names because I think that redundant information makes life easier