Add dry air warm bubble test case

[benegee]

Easy part of #1778

[github-actions]

Review checklist

This checklist is meant to assist creators of PRs (to let them know what reviewers will typically look for) and reviewers (to guide them in a structured review process). Items do not need to be checked explicitly for a PR to be eligible for merging.

Purpose and scope

• The PR has a single goal that is clear from the PR title and/or description.
• All code changes represent a single set of modifications that logically belong together.
• No more than 500 lines of code are changed or there is no obvious way to split the PR into multiple PRs.

Code quality

• The code can be understood easily.
• Newly introduced names for variables etc. are self-descriptive and consistent with existing naming conventions.
• There are no redundancies that can be removed by simple modularization/refactoring.
• There are no leftover debug statements or commented code sections.
• The code adheres to our conventions and style guide, and to the Julia guidelines.

Documentation

• New functions and types are documented with a docstring or top-level comment.
• Relevant publications are referenced in docstrings (see example for formatting).
• Inline comments are used to document longer or unusual code sections.
• Comments describe intent ("why?") and not just functionality ("what?").
• If the PR introduces a significant change or new feature, it is documented in NEWS.md.

Testing

• The PR passes all tests.
• New or modified lines of code are covered by tests.
• New or modified tests run in less then 10 seconds.

Performance

• There are no type instabilities or memory allocations in performance-critical parts.
• If the PR intent is to improve performance, before/after time measurements are posted in the PR.

Verification

• The correctness of the code was verified using appropriate tests.
• If new equations/methods are added, a convergence test has been run and the results
  are posted in the PR.

Created with ❤️ by the Trixi.jl community.

[benegee]

Thanks for the review @ranocha. You were way too fast for me. I will add further remarks soon!

[benegee]

Concerning testing:
Is it sufficient (and necessary) to add the elixir to the test suite? I reduced resolution and final solution time s.t. it has a runtime of about 2 seconds on my laptop.

[ranocha]

Concerning testing: Is it sufficient (and necessary) to add the elixir to the test suite? I reduced resolution and final solution time s.t. it has a runtime of about 2 seconds on my laptop.

Yes, please. The elixir can have settings such that it is somewhat useful - maybe with a warning about the execution time and required resources. We can reduce the resolution and final time for testing via keyword arguments of of the testing macro.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (2463b38) 88.88% compared to head (db447f8) 96.30%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1779      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   88.88%   96.30%   +7.42%     
==========================================
  Files         439      441       +2     
  Lines       35635    35734      +99     
==========================================
+ Hits        31672    34413    +2741     
+ Misses       3963     1321    -2642     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	96.30% <100.00%> (+7.42%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[andrewwinters5000]

The results are looking good. I left a few comments because I feel that the warm bubble test setup needs some clarification.

[andrewwinters5000]

LGTM!

[benegee]

Thank you all for your support!

[DanielDoehring]

What about PRs #171 and #1017 ?
Can they be closed as tackled?

[sloede]

What about PRs #171 and #1017 ? Can they be closed as tackled?

Good point! @bgeihe Do you feel like there is something in the other two PRs that is missing from your PR? If yes, it would be great to document this (maybe in an issue) but if not, it would be nice to close the PRs with a friendly & explanatory message

[benegee]

What about PRs #171 and #1017 ? Can they be closed as tackled?

Not yet. This PR covers the first part of #1778 (warm rising bubble in dry air, no changes to the underlying equations). The next part will deal with moist air.

Thanks for the reference to #1017!