revert: "test: removing composite example"

[germa89]

This reverts commit 917ca90.

Description

This PR readd the composite DPF example which was removed because of failures.

Issue linked

Close #3486

Checklist

• I have visited and read Develop PyMAPDL.
• I have tested my changes locally
• I have added necessary documentation or updated existing documentation.
• I have followed the PyMAPDL coding style guidelines.
• I have added appropriate unit tests that also ensure the minimal coverage criteria.
• I have reviewed my changes before submitting this pull request.
• I have linked the issue or issues that are solved to the PR if any.
• I have assigned this PR to myself.
• I have marked this PR as draft if it is not ready to be reviewed yet.
• I have made sure that the title of my PR follows Commit naming conventions (e.g. feat: adding new MAPDL command)

Summary by Sourcery

Revert the previous removal of the composite example by restoring the composite_dcb.py demonstration and updating the changelog accordingly

New Features:

• Reintroduce the composite double cantilever beam cohesive element simulation example

Documentation:

• Add changelog entry for revert of composite example removal

[ansys-reviewer-bot]

Thanks for opening a Pull Request. If you want to perform a review write a comment saying:

@ansys-reviewer-bot review

[sourcery-ai]

Hey @germa89 - I've reviewed your changes and they look great!

Here's what I looked at during the review

• 🟡 General issues: 4 issues found
• 🟢 Security: all looks good
• 🟢 Testing: all looks good
• 🟢 Documentation: all looks good

---

Sourcery is free for open source - if you like our reviews please consider sharing them ✨

• X
• Mastodon
• LinkedIn
• Facebook

_{Help me be more useful! Please click 👍 or 👎 on each comment and I'll use the feedback to improve your reviews.}

[germa89]

@PProfizi @rafacanton could you have a look at this commit and tell me if this is the best approach to consider both cases, a remote DPF server running on port DPF_PORT and a local MAPDL installation?

This is the commit: cc5a3f3

[germa89]

I think I could also use dpf.server.has_local_server()??

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 89.13%. Comparing base (a6e939a) to head (674ab6d).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@ ## main #4000 +/- ## ========================================== + Coverage 89.12% 89.13% +0.01%  ========================================== Files 187 187 Lines 14970 14970 ========================================== + Hits 13342 13344 +2  + Misses 1628 1626 -2 

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[germa89]

Elements selections seems to have problems still when not all the nodes are selected for the elements we want to plot.

Related to #3782

[rafacanton]

@PProfizi @rafacanton could you have a look at this commit and tell me if this is the best approach to consider both cases, a remote DPF server running on port DPF_PORT and a local MAPDL installation?

This is the commit: cc5a3f3

@germa89 I see a couple of things:

• Why not passing the ip as well?
• In either the in-process or gRPC case you are connecting to the server and creating a variable, dpf_server. This just stablishes the connection. However, you are not explicitly saying that you are going to run the subsequent operators in that server. To do that, you either:
  • Use dpf_server to instantiate operators, e.g.: model = dpf.Model(path_source, dpf_server)
  • Set the server as global at construction, e.g.: dpf_server = dpf.server.connect_to_server(port=int(os.environ["DPF_PORT"]), as_global=True). This seems to be the default, but better explicit than implicit.

[germa89]

@rafacanton

Because DPF is running on a container, and that container binds the port 50055, I just need to tell the port because the IP is "local".

I was trusting on the as_global argument, but sure, I will explicitly code it.

Thank you a lot @rafacanton !

[germa89]

It looks great. Pinging @rmanno91 for awareness. Sorry it took so long!

[germa89]

@pyansys-ci-bot LGTM.

[pyansys-ci-bot]

✅ Approving this PR because germa89 said so in here 😬