Giving opposite boundaries different names no longer causes a symmetry validator failure

[jewettaijfc]

This small PR solves issue #2635 .

• The validator ignores the name attribute of the plus and minus boundary conditions, when deciding whether plus and minus are identical.
• Previously the validator would fail if the boundaries were given different names.
• Fixes the original unit test.

Test instructions

Automatic Tests

pytest -s -n0 tests/test_components/test_simulation.py::test_validate_symmetry_boundaries

Manual tests

To test manually, run the following code snippet and confirm that no errors are generated:

import tidy3d as td

_ = td.Simulation(
    size=(1, 1, 1),
    symmetry=(1, 1, 1),
    grid_spec=td.GridSpec.uniform(dl=0.1),
    run_time=1e-12,
    boundary_spec=td.BoundarySpec(
        x=td.Boundary.pml(),
        y=td.Boundary.pml(),
        z=td.Boundary(
            # Give the plus and minus boundaries different names to confirm it does not matter.
            plus=td.PML(name="b1"),
            minus=td.PML(name="b2"),
        ),
    ),
)

(Previously, the _validate_boundary_spec_symmetry() validator would fail.)

Greptile Summary

This PR fixes a bug in the boundary condition symmetry validation logic. Previously, when users set different names for physically identical boundary conditions on opposite sides (plus/minus), the validator would incorrectly fail. The fix modifies the validation to ignore the name attribute when comparing boundaries, focusing only on their physical properties.

The changes involve:

1. Updating the equivalent() function to make copies of boundaries with empty names before comparison
2. Using Pydantic's immutable copy(update=...) method to properly handle the comparison
3. Adding appropriate changelog entry under the 'Fixed' section

This change improves usability by allowing users to give meaningful names to their boundary conditions without triggering false validation errors, while still maintaining proper symmetry validation for the physical properties that matter.

Confidence score: 5/5

1. This PR is very safe to merge as it fixes a clear validator bug without affecting simulation behavior
2. The fix is simple, well-tested, and only affects validation logic, not the actual simulation mechanics
3. Key files to review:
   • tidy3d/components/simulation.py
   • test_simulation.py (test updates)

_{2 files reviewed, no comments
Edit PR Review Bot Settings | Greptile}

[greptile-apps]

Reviewing changes made in this pull request

[github-actions]

Diff Coverage

Diff: origin/develop...HEAD, staged and unstaged changes

• tidy3d/components/simulation.py (100%)

Summary

• Total: 5 lines
• Missing: 0 lines
• Coverage: 100%

[yaugenst-flex]

Thanks @jewettaijfc looks great! Just a minor nitpick.

[yaugenst-flex]

LGTM!