raising error when the surface is not completely embedded inside FFDS.

[ArshSaja]

Purpose

DvGeo prints a warning when it cannot embed points. So that people understand not to proceed, this warning has to be strengthened. This PR will assist in identifying any such problems.

Expected time until merged

Type of change

• Bugfix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Breaking change (non-backwards-compatible fix or feature)
• Code style update (formatting, renaming)
• Refactoring (no functional changes, no API changes)
• Documentation update
• Maintenance update
• Other (please describe)

Testing

Checklist

• I have run flake8 and black to make sure the Python code adheres to PEP-8 and is consistently formatted
• I have formatted the Fortran code with fprettify or C/C++ code with clang-format as applicable
• I have run unit and regression tests which pass locally with my changes
• I have added new tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
• I have added necessary documentation

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #181 (706585c) into main (94909eb) will decrease coverage by 0.01%.
The diff coverage is 0.00%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #181      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   64.61%   64.60%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files          47       47              
  Lines       11954    11952       -2     
==========================================
- Hits         7724     7722       -2     
  Misses       4230     4230              

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
pygeo/mphys/mphys_dvgeo.py	0.00% <ø> (ø)
pygeo/parameterization/DVGeoSketch.py	67.92% <ø> (-0.30%)	⬇️
pygeo/parameterization/DVGeoVSP.py	81.50% <ø> (-0.05%)	⬇️
pygeo/pyBlock.py	46.92% <0.00%> (-0.10%)	⬇️

📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more

[anilyil]

Please see my comments in #179

[marcomangano]

What is the status of this PR? @ArshSaja are you going to address @anilyil comments about additional checks?

[ArshSaja]

@marcomangano Yes, I am planning to address them next week or so.. probably I will get it done soon

[eirikurj]

@ArshSaja any updates on this?

[ArshSaja]

@ArshSaja any updates on this?

I made some changes. I will push them soon when it is finalized.

[lamkina]

@ArshSaja do you still intend to finish this PR? Seems this has gone stale over the past year.

[ArshSaja]

@ArshSaja do you still intend to finish this PR? Seems this has gone stale over the past year.

We can draft this one. It needs more work

[ArshSaja]

Sorry for taking time, I am not very familiar with the FFD part in the code. I think we can merge this one with this current simple check or someone who is familiar with the FFD stuff need to continue on this. What do you think? @anilyil @eirikurj

[gawng]

@ArshSaja I don't think @anilyil and @eirikurj have the bandwidth to implement the boolean logic mentioned in #179 right now. It may be better to ask @hajdik about this if she is not too busy.