Field checksum update

[mwaxmonsky]

Description

Updates C++ implementation/API to pure AMReX based instead of C/Fortran-based.

Type of Change

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
• Documentation update
• Code maintenance (refactoring, optimization, etc.)
• CI/CD changes

Related Issues

Fixes #

Changes Made

• Updates TIM submodule with C++/AMReX implementation of field_checksum.

Testing

Test Environment

• Tested on derecho
• Tested locally
• Other: _______________

Compiler(s) Tested

• Intel
• GNU
• NVHPC
• Other: _______________

Test Cases

• All existing tests pass
• New tests added and pass
• Manual testing performed
• Examples run successfully

Test Results

Performance Impact

• No performance impact expected
• Performance improvement
• Potential performance impact (explain below)

Documentation

• Code comments updated
• README updated
• User documentation updated
• Developer documentation updated
• No documentation changes needed

Checklist

• My code follows the project's coding standards
• I have performed a self-review of my own code
• I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
• I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
• My changes generate no new warnings or errors
• I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
• New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
• Any dependent changes have been merged and published

Additional Notes

[johnmauff]

Do you want my review on this PR, or the changes to the TIM library?

[mwaxmonsky]

Do you want my review on this PR, or the changes to the TIM library?

My apologies! I forgot to update the TIM PR to be out of draft as well. Probably there is a better place.

[johnmauff]

@mwaxmonsky While I like where you are going with respect to using more AMReX data-structures, I think that more can be done to make it more modular and reusable. In particular, I would like to see it support multifab arrays. So keep the lower level function that operates over a box and an Array4. Add a method that loops over element of a multifab calling the lower level function. After the on-MPI rank calculations are performed then perform the parallel sum. I do like the way you are wrapping the Fortran memory into a box and an Array4. I am wondering about the construction of your box and Array4 in the interface layer. Should the array bounds go from 0 to size_array-1?

[mwaxmonsky]

Putting this back into draft until it is re-prioritized.

[github-actions]

👋 Friendly reminder @hctorres — this PR has had no activity for 7 days and is still awaiting your review. When you have a moment, please take a look!

[github-actions]

👋 Friendly reminder @hctorres — this PR has had no activity for 7 days and is still awaiting your review. When you have a moment, please take a look!