Improve support for 2d meshes embedded in 3d space

[nmnobre]

No description provided.

[moosebuild]

Job Coverage, step Generate coverage on 7593ef4 wanted to post the following:

Coverage

	d7439c	#4064 7593ef
	Total	Total	+/-	New
Rate	62.51%	62.51%	+0.00%	96.55%
Hits	72990	72993	+3	28
Misses	43773	43774	+1	1

Diff coverage report

Full coverage report

This comment will be updated on new commits.

[nmnobre]

John (@jwpeterson), Roy (@roystgnr), do we have support for transforming vector functions/solutions (Lagrange, Hierarchical, Monomial) after a mesh transformation?

For instance, FE<3, MONOMIAL_VEC>::shape() exists and gives a vector basis function, but then monomial_vec_nodal_soln() falls back to the scalar basis functions again for some reason? Equipped with the vector function, it'd be easier to formulate 2d problems in 3d. Is the functionality (partially) implemented somewhere - it feels like it must be?

[jwpeterson]

do we have support for transforming vector functions/solutions (Lagrange, Hierarchical, Monomial) after a mesh transformation?

I don't know the answer to your question for sure, but I fear it's probably "no". If I understand correctly, you are asking about mapping a vector solution from an initial mesh to a stretched/translated version of that same mesh?

[nmnobre]

I don't know the answer to your question for sure, but I fear it's probably "no". If I understand correctly, you are asking about mapping a vector solution from an initial mesh to a stretched/translated version of that same mesh?

Yep, or rotated for instance. Because that's the same map we'd need if solving 1d/2d problems in a higher dimensional space. If each dof maps to a vector function, then I can transform that function the same way I transformed the mesh.
If the problem is formulated effectively as 3 scalar variables (whose transformation is just the identity) then I'm guessing the answer is no indeed. But I'm wondering if we could assemble/formulate from 3 vector variables with zeros on the two other components instead. Just like what FE<3, MONOMIAL_VEC>::shape() returns.

[nmnobre]

To answer myself above, I'm now convinced the proper and natural way of supporting Lagrange-like vector FEs embedded in higher dimensional spaces is to change FEGenericBase<RealGradient>::build() to take a vector dimension vdim. That'd imply changing the constructor FE<Dim,T>::FE(), from there the no. of dofs/functions to consider vdim, and from there shape() and derivative friends. It's going to be a bit of work...

So, I suggest we try to converge on a compromise here. It'll be a bit bizarre perhaps, having better support for ND/RT than classical FEs, but it's still a pure addition, with no loss in current functionality. Thoughts?