Meshing Workflows - why are old arguments required and is there any advice on how to set these

[spatel-23]

🔍 Before submitting the issue

• I have searched among the existing issues
• I am using a Python virtual environment

🐞 Description of the bug

Why are old arguments required and is there any advice on how to set these?

Watertight Meshing Workflow

Update boundaries
meshing.workflow.TaskObject["Update Boundaries"].Arguments = {
"BoundaryLabelList": ["wall-inlet"],
"BoundaryLabelTypeList": ["wall"],
"OldBoundaryLabelList": ["wall-inlet"],
"OldBoundaryLabelTypeList": ["velocity-inlet"],

Fault-Tolerant Meshing Workflow

Update regions settings
"OldRegionLeakageSizeList": [""],
"OldRegionMeshMethodList": ["wrap"],
"OldRegionNameList": ["fluid-region-1"],
"OldRegionOversetComponenList": ["no"],
"OldRegionTypeList": ["fluid"],
"OldRegionVolumeFillList": ["hexcore"]

📝 Steps to reproduce

Watertight Meshing Workflow and Fault-Tolerant Meshing Workflow examples show these.

💻 Which operating system are you using?

Windows

📀 Which ANSYS version are you using?

2024R1

🐍 Which Python version are you using?

3.8

📦 Installed packages

NA

[raph-luc]

My understanding of the basics here is that you need a way to specify which boundaries/regions you are changing when providing the arguments for the task object.

For example, if your geometry initially has boundary labels ["wall-1", "wall-2", "inlet", "outlet"], respectively associated with types ["wall", "wall", "velocity-inlet","pressure-outlet"], and you want to change "wall-1" label to "mass-inlet" and its type from "wall" to "mass-flow-inlet", you'd provide the following:

meshing.workflow.TaskObject["Update Boundaries"].Arguments = {
  "BoundaryLabelList": ["mass-inlet"],
  "BoundaryLabelTypeList": ["mass-flow-inlet"],
  "OldBoundaryLabelList": ["wall-1"],
  "OldBoundaryLabelTypeList": ["wall"],
}

Similarly, in the Watertight Meshing Workflow example you shared above, those arguments are changing the type of the boundary labeled "wall-inlet" from "velocity-inlet" to "wall".

Does this explanation make sense?

[spatel-23]

Thanks for quick answer - that's useful to know and makes sense, as you point out, to specify old values to identify boundaries/regions you want to change. But not sure if it makes sense to also specify the old type.
The point I am trying to make is that inputting such old arguments can be tedious for large complex cases especially when they don't seem to be needed.

[raph-luc]

I fully agree with you. I don't personally like the way this is set up, and I don't know if it really needs to be this way. I will discuss this with the team, thanks for bringing this up.

[pyansys-automation]

Hello @seanpearsonuk!
This issue has been open for over a year and has had no updates in the past 8 months. If it is still relevant, please provide an update. Otherwise, consider closing it to help keep the issue tracker clean.

If this issue needs to remain open, please comment below with @pyansys-automation never close issue to prevent it from being automatically closed.

If you want this repository to be excluded from this automated maintenance process, please let us know by filling in the opt-out request form.