Make the VPMB-B planner pass all tests

[Robert C. Helling]

Rick,

you are a hero! Sorting alt these things out.

> On 29 Aug 2015, at 14:38, Rick Walsh <rickmwalsh at gmail.com <mailto:rickmwalsh at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> With this series of patches, we now pass all VPM-B tests
> 
> [PATCH 01/10] VPM-B Tests: Output first ceiling
> [PATCH 02/10] Update expected runtime of VPM-B test to match
> [PATCH 03/10] VPM-B: Use correct gamma values
> [PATCH 04/10] Use Schreiner water vapour pressure for VPM-B
> [PATCH 05/10] VPM-B: Calculate crushing pressure on descent
> [PATCH 06/10] Planner: Change where we clear deco and reset gradients
> [PATCH 07/10] VPM-B: Remove obsolete first_ceiling_pressure
> [PATCH 08/10] VPM-B: Round first ceiling pressure up to stop
> [PATCH 09/10] VPM-B tests: correct typo
> [PATCH 10/10] VPM-B Tests: Compare against known Subsurface runtime

In general, this all looks good, except for a number of minor points: When doing such a series of patches (and yes, it is good to split them into small functional units) and you later find you want to correct one of the earlier patches, there is git commit —amend and git rebase -i („Rewriting history“)  where you can hide the fact, that earlier you committed a typo in a comment and did some miscalculation, see for example

https://www.atlassian.com/git/tutorials/rewriting-history/git-rebase-i <https://www.atlassian.com/git/tutorials/rewriting-history/git-rebase-i>

My only worry is 4/10: What is the „Schreiner water vapour pressure“? I already have problems with people giving a name to the solution of the differential equation

y’(x) = gamma (f(x) - y(x))

for f(x) a linear function (some people call this the Schreiner equation when they talk about tissue loadings during an ascent or descent). But how can two different people have different values for water vapour? This is a measurable value (which is temperature dependent of course), see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapour_pressure_of_water <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapour_pressure_of_water>

I mean, I gave up arguing about the reasonableness of values of VPM-B, they are what they are, but when doing strange things one should no longer pretend that there is a physical basis for something.

How much difference does this patch (in its corrected version) actually make for run-times?

Also, don’t test prefs.deco_mode alone, always use it in conjunction with in_planner() (maybe we need a macro or inline function for that) since, at least so far, the deco mode only has a relevance in the planner and when plotting profiles outside the planner, we always use Buehlmann.

Best
Robert
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.subsurface-divelog.org/pipermail/subsurface/attachments/20150829/9f254a12/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.subsurface-divelog.org/pipermail/subsurface/attachments/20150829/9f254a12/attachment-0001.sig>