[Core] Node adding more documentation

[loumalouomega]

📝 Description

This PR refactors the Node class. The changes include:

1. Refactoring and Clean-Up:

   • Several unused imports and redundant definitions were removed from node.h.
   • The constructor and member functions were adjusted, with some deprecated or redundant code removed.

2. Node as final

3. Documentation:

   • New docstrings were added for various methods.

🆕 Changelog

• Removed unused includes and redundant code in node.h.
• Improved function documentation for better clarity and maintainability.
• Node as final

[matekelemen]

I'd leave quite a few functions in the header.

[sunethwarna]

Since we are touching the Node here, why don't we make it final also? @KratosMultiphysics/technical-committee

[loumalouomega]

Since we are touching the Node here, why don't we make it final also? @KratosMultiphysics/technical-committee

Something tells me it is going to crash something

[roigcarlo]

I see no problem in the refactor but I doubt that for this particular class implementing something in the cpp can lead to any improvement. They are very cheap to parse anyway. The problematic ones (the inlined) still need to remain in the header.

That being said, why we want to make the node final exactly?

[loumalouomega]

I see no problem in the refactor but I doubt that for this particular class implementing something in the cpp can lead to any improvement. They are very cheap to parse anyway. The problematic ones (the inlined) still need to remain in the header.

That being said, why we want to make the node final exactly?

Two things:

• Just moving serializer it is helpful for debugging pourposes, otherwise debugging serializer with node can be painful.
• Clean up is good (specially unused includes that expotentially increase compilation times as node is included everywhere)

[sunethwarna]

@KratosMultiphysics/technical-committee agrees with the documentation, but we think node should not be splitted. Thanks a lot for the effort @loumalouomega .

[loumalouomega]

@KratosMultiphysics/technical-committee agrees with the documentation, but we think node should not be splitted. Thanks a lot for the effort @loumalouomega .

can you explain me why?, because it does not harm

[loumalouomega]

@KratosMultiphysics/technical-committee agrees with the documentation, but we think node should not be splitted. Thanks a lot for the effort @loumalouomega .

Done

[RiccardoRossi]

@KratosMultiphysics/technical-committee agrees with the documentation, but we think node should not be splitted. Thanks a lot for the effort @loumalouomega .

can you explain me why?, because it does not harm

All of the template stuff becomes problematic if you have a cpp. Also inlining is not any longer automatic...moreover we lose the history

[loumalouomega]

@KratosMultiphysics/technical-committee agrees with the documentation, but we think node should not be splitted. Thanks a lot for the effort @loumalouomega .

can you explain me why?, because it does not harm

All of the template stuff becomes problematic if you have a cpp. Also inlining is not any longer automatic...moreover we lose the history

I have not moved any templated stuff. Neither any inlines function. The history were relatively few functions.

[RiccardoRossi]

Is it only the save and load you need?

[loumalouomega]

Is it only the save and load you need?

Not only, bues these are not inline methods

[loumalouomega]

I don't understand why @KratosMultiphysics/geomechanics is failing...

[avdg81]

I don't understand why @KratosMultiphysics/geomechanics is failing...

We have discovered this failure about half an hour ago ourselves. We have a prepared a small PR that disables the broken test. Hopefully it will be merged within a few hours. On behalf of @KratosMultiphysics/geomechanics, sorry for the inconvenience.

[loumalouomega]

I don't understand why @KratosMultiphysics/geomechanics is failing...

We have discovered this failure about half an hour ago ourselves. We have a prepared a small PR that disables the broken test. Hopefully it will be merged within a few hours. On behalf of @KratosMultiphysics/geomechanics, sorry for the inconvenience.

Is this fixed?, I guess so

[loumalouomega]

@roigcarlo This is just doc now

[avdg81]

I don't understand why @KratosMultiphysics/geomechanics is failing...

We have discovered this failure about half an hour ago ourselves. We have a prepared a small PR that disables the broken test. Hopefully it will be merged within a few hours. On behalf of @KratosMultiphysics/geomechanics, sorry for the inconvenience.

Is this fixed?, I guess so

Yes, it was fixed the night we discovered it.