CRL Vessel

[rjrios915]

Added a CRL Vessel Block

Current situation

I added a new blood vessel ordered capacitor, resistor, inductor.

Release Notes

• Adds a new blood vessel block

Documentation

Added Doxygen for new block.

Testing

Added both analytical and closed loop test validated against previous solutions.

Code of Conduct & Contributing Guidelines

• I agree to follow the Code of Conduct and Contributing Guidelines.

[mrp089]

Thanks @rjrios915! Please have a look at the reviews. There are a bunch of changes that shouldn't be in here which make it hard to see the actual novelties of this PR. Mainly, these are:

• applications: a bunch of formatting changes (that we don't pick up on because clang-format only checks the src folder)
• unintended changes regarding the cycle length that are likely from incorrectly merging conflicting files from another PR

In the future, when opening a PR, please have a look at the Files changed tab on the GitHub PR. There should be only changes that you intend to make. If you notice any other modified files, reset them with git checkout master <path-to-file>.

[mrp089]

this shouldn't be deleted, probably result of a merge conflict

[ncdorn]

this should be cleaned up and good to go as well but maybe we merge in #201 and then rebase and merge this. @mrp089 let me know what you think

[mrp089]

@ncdorn, I merged #201. It looks like there are some (easy-to-resolve) conflicts in here. Also, there are still some unintended changes from a prior merge conflict (e.g. deleting closedLoopHeart_singleVessel_mistmatchPeriod.json).

[ncdorn]

ok this should be cleaned up and good to go! @mrp089 let me know what you think

[ncdorn]

@mrp089 just following up on this

[mrp089]

Did the test case get removed accidentally? I thought there was one earlier.

[ncdorn]

I believe the test case file and result was added with #201. However it was not called in list of files in the pytest parametrization. I will add that into the list of files and ensure the test runs. good catch

[ncdorn]

It appears that when the reference result was originally computed the config was set up slightly differently. I made changes to the config to match the originally computed, unchanged reference solution however there were very slight differences (~10^-3 relative error) between the original reference and new resultant solution. this was not passing the solver test's tight tolerances so I recomputed the reference solution such that the reference and test result now match exactly. I want to emphasize that there were no major changes to the reference solution, just very small numerical adjustments. @mrp089 let me know what you think of this.