Change the upper limit of q_v_sat in relations.jl

[szy21]

Also bumps a patch release. cc @charleskawczynski

Todo: add tests

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 90.40%. Comparing base (d150a35) to head (121f953).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #220      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   90.93%   90.40%   -0.53%     
==========================================
  Files          10        9       -1     
  Lines        1180     1167      -13     
==========================================
- Hits         1073     1055      -18     
- Misses        107      112       +5     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[charleskawczynski]

The code changes look fine to me, should we add some tests for this? It seems like this behavior has been adjusted a couple times, maybe we could also add some comments (in the src or tests). Relevant PRs:

• Fix q_vap_sat equation #109
• Disallow negative q_vap_sat #108

[szy21]

The code changes look fine to me, should we add some tests for this? It seems like this behavior has been adjusted a couple times, maybe we could also add some comments (in the src or tests). Relevant PRs:

• Fix q_vap_sat equation #109
• Disallow negative q_vap_sat #108

Ah, I didn't know it was changed from 1 to 1 / eps(FT) before. @tapios Could you double check what we want here? See this comment: #109 (comment).

[tapios]

The code changes look fine to me, should we add some tests for this? It seems like this behavior has been adjusted a couple times, maybe we could also add some comments (in the src or tests). Relevant PRs:

• Fix q_vap_sat equation #109
• Disallow negative q_vap_sat #108

Ah, I didn't know it was changed from 1 to 1 / eps(FT) before. @tapios Could you double check what we want here? See this comment: #109 (comment).

I see what the intention was. We just wanted to make sure that when pv_sat > p, we have q_sat > 1. In that case, I think it's safer to set it to 1+FT(eps). What I don't know is whether q_sat > 1 causes problems anywhere else in Thermodynamics. If it does, q_sat = 1 should also work.

[szy21]

I'll change it to 1+eps(FT)

[szy21]

@charleskawczynski Does this test make sense? Is it useful?

[charleskawczynski]

I think that's fine so long we're sure that this exercises that branch.

[charleskawczynski]

I'll try to get #221 merged asap so that we can rebase/merge this PR