//! Tests for SIMPLE algorithm implementation
//!
//! The SIMPLE (Semi-Implicit Method for Pressure Linked Equations) algorithm
//! is a widely used method for solving incompressible Navier-Stokes equations.
//! These tests verify the real mathematical implementation.

use approx::assert_relative_eq;
use rtx_cfd::{CfdConfig, CfdResult};

#[cfg(test)]
mod simple_tests {
    use super::*;
    use rtx_cfd::solvers::incompressible::{
        BoundaryConditions, BoundaryLocation, BoundaryType, FlowField, IncompressibleSolver,
        SimpleParameters, SimpleSolver,
    };

    #[tokio::test]
    async fn test_simple_solver_creation() -> CfdResult<()> {
        let config = CfdConfig::new().with_density(1.0).with_viscosity(1e-3);

        let params = SimpleParameters::default()
            .with_pressure_relaxation(0.3)
            .with_velocity_relaxation(0.7)
            .with_max_iterations(1000)
            .with_tolerance(1e-6);

        let solver = SimpleSolver::new(config, params)?;

        assert_eq!(solver.parameters().pressure_relaxation, 0.3);
        assert_eq!(solver.parameters().velocity_relaxation, 0.7);

        Ok(())
    }

    #[tokio::test]
    async fn test_lid_driven_cavity_re100() -> CfdResult<()> {
        // Classic benchmark: lid-driven cavity at Re=100
        let config = CfdConfig::new()
            .with_density(1.0)
            .with_viscosity(1e-2) // Re = UL/ν = 1*1/0.01 = 100
            .with_reference_velocity(1.0)
            .with_reference_length(1.0);

        // Steady solve: no pseudo-time step, under-relaxation folded into the
        // momentum coefficients. The converged field is independent of both
        // `time_step` (unused here) and the relaxation factor.
        let params = SimpleParameters::default()
            .with_pressure_relaxation(0.3)
            .with_velocity_relaxation(0.7)
            .with_max_iterations(8000)
            // 2e-4, not 1e-6. The two lid corners, where the moving lid meets
            // a stationary wall, carry a velocity discontinuity: the mass
            // imbalance there does not reduce with iteration, so the
            // normalised residual floors near 1.6e-4 on this grid. It falls
            // roughly linearly with mesh size — 1.6e-3 at 17^2, 5.2e-4 at
            // 33^2, 1.6e-4 at 65^2, 7.8e-5 at 97^2 — which is the signature of
            // a singularity rather than of an unconverged solve. It is the
            // same one Botella & Peyret (1998) subtract analytically to reach
            // spectral accuracy. The *momentum* residual reaches machine zero.
            // The physical assertions below establish correctness; this is
            // only the stopping rule.
            .with_tolerance(2e-4);

        let mut solver = SimpleSolver::new(config, params)?;

        // 65x65. First-order upwind carries a numerical viscosity of about
        // |u| dx / 2, so the effective Reynolds number is well below the
        // nominal 100 on a coarse grid; refining moves the solution steadily
        // toward the reference (see the assertions on `u_min` below).
        let nx = 65;
        let ny = 65;
        let dx = 1.0 / (nx as f64 - 1.0);
        let dy = 1.0 / (ny as f64 - 1.0);

        // Initialize flow field
        let mut flow_field = FlowField::new(nx, ny, dx, dy)?;

        // Setup boundary conditions for lid-driven cavity.
        //
        // On a staggered MAC grid the only velocity components that live *on* a
        // boundary are the normal ones: u faces `i = 0` and `i = nx` on the
        // sides, v faces `j = 0` and `j = ny` on the floor and lid. Every u row
        // sits at `y = (j + 0.5) dy` and every v column at `x = (i + 0.5) dx` —
        // strictly interior, every one of them. The tangential no-slip and lid
        // conditions are therefore not stored values at all; they enter the
        // discretisation through the near-wall control volume's half-cell
        // diffusion term, which is what `set_wall_velocity` supplies.
        //
        // `FreeSlipWall` is the condition that prescribes the normal component
        // and leaves the tangential one free, so it is the right one on all four
        // sides here — the no-slip part arrives via the wall velocity below.
        //
        // This previously prescribed whole u rows and v columns with
        // `set_velocity_bc`, pinning lines that lie half a cell inside the
        // domain. That was harmless only while the momentum sweeps froze those
        // same lines. Now that every cell has a continuity equation, every cell
        // needs at least one face the pressure correction may move, and pinning
        // an interior face over-determines the cells beside it: the solve
        // diverged, residual climbing steadily from 0.10 at iteration 20 to 3.8
        // at iteration 8000, with max |div u| of 64.
        let mut bcs = BoundaryConditions::new();
        for location in [
            BoundaryLocation::Left,
            BoundaryLocation::Right,
            BoundaryLocation::Bottom,
            BoundaryLocation::Top,
        ] {
            bcs.add_boundary_condition(location, BoundaryType::FreeSlipWall);
        }

        // The lid moves; the other three walls do not. Sampled at the wall face
        // position, so the test compares `y` against the top of the domain,
        // which is `ny * dy` — this grid spans slightly more than the unit
        // square, since `FlowField` counts cells and `dx` is 1/(nx - 1).
        let domain_top = ny as f64 * dy;
        solver.set_wall_velocity(move |_x, y| {
            if y > 0.5 * domain_top {
                (1.0, 0.0)
            } else {
                (0.0, 0.0)
            }
        });

        // Apply boundary conditions
        flow_field.apply_boundary_conditions(&bcs)?;

        // Run SIMPLE iterations
        let result = solver.solve(&mut flow_field, &bcs).await?;

        // Verify convergence
        assert!(
            result.solver_result.converged,
            "SIMPLE solver should converge for lid-driven cavity"
        );
        assert!(
            result.solver_result.final_residual < 2e-4,
            "Final residual should be below tolerance"
        );
        assert!(
            result.solver_result.iterations < 8000,
            "Should converge in reasonable iterations"
        );

        // The check that distinguishes a cavity from a sheared box.
        //
        // A lid-driven cavity recirculates: on the vertical centreline the
        // horizontal velocity is *negative* through the lower half, as the
        // return flow comes back beneath the primary vortex. Ghia, Ghia & Shin
        // (1982) put the minimum at u = -0.2109, y = 0.4531 for Re = 100.
        //
        // Before the pressure-velocity coupling was repaired this solver
        // produced a monotonic profile rising from 0 at the floor to 1 at the
        // lid — Couette flow, with no recirculation anywhere — because the
        // pressure correction was some four orders of magnitude too weak to
        // enforce continuity, and the return flow in a cavity is driven
        // entirely by the pressure gradient. Every assertion above passes for
        // that wrong field; this one does not.
        let mut u_min = 0.0_f64;
        let mut y_at_min = 0.0_f64;
        for j in 0..ny {
            let (u, _) = flow_field.get_velocity_at(nx / 2, j)?;
            if u < u_min {
                u_min = u;
                y_at_min = j as f64 / (ny - 1) as f64;
            }
        }

        assert!(
            u_min < -0.05,
            "no recirculation on the centreline (minimum u = {u_min:.4}); \
             the solution is a shear layer, not a cavity"
        );

        // Ghia puts the centreline minimum at y = 0.4531. This solver reads
        // 0.5000 on a 65^2 grid, and the band below is set around what it
        // actually delivers rather than around the reference — an honest record
        // of a real disagreement, not a claim of agreement.
        //
        // The history is worth keeping straight, because two of the three
        // numbers this has read were right for the wrong reasons. It used to
        // read 0.484, which looked good: the diffusion conductances omitted the
        // face area and were a factor 1/h too large, so the solver ran at a
        // Reynolds number far below 100, and a strongly over-diffusive cavity
        // approaches Stokes flow, whose vortex sits near mid-height. Correcting
        // the viscosity exposed the discretisation's own error and it fell to
        // 0.3906. Making the near-wall lines unknowns — rather than freezing
        // them and imposing the wall half a cell inside the domain — moved it to
        // 0.5000. The error against Ghia went 0.062 -> 0.047, so this is a real
        // improvement, but it overshoots now where it undershot before, and a
        // first-order scheme at 65^2 has no business claiming better.
        //
        // `tests/mms_navier_stokes.rs` measures the underlying error directly:
        // the observed order of accuracy is now 0.85 to 0.91, up from 0.48,
        // where first-order upwind should give 1.
        assert!(
            (0.44..0.56).contains(&y_at_min),
            "the primary vortex is at y = {y_at_min:.4}, outside the band this \
             solver currently warrants (Ghia: 0.4531)"
        );

        // The *strength* is limited by first-order upwind's numerical
        // viscosity, which at this resolution is a substantial fraction of the
        // physical viscosity, so Ghia's -0.2109 is not reachable here. The grid
        // study in docs/solver_status.md showed the value climbing monotonically
        // toward it: -0.123 at 17^2, -0.154 at 33^2, -0.1792 at 65^2, -0.182 at
        // 97^2, Richardson-extrapolating to about -0.199.
        //
        // Solving the near-wall rows instead of freezing them moved the 65^2
        // figure from -0.1792 to -0.1932 — 15% of the remaining gap to Ghia,
        // closed on the same mesh, and in 733 outer iterations instead of 971.
        // The band is shifted to match, not widened: it is the same 0.04 wide as
        // before. Bounding it both ways catches a solver that has stopped
        // recirculating *and* one that has become unphysically energetic.
        assert!(
            (-0.21..-0.17).contains(&u_min),
            "centreline minimum {u_min:.4} is outside the band expected for \
             first-order upwind at 65^2 approaching Ghia's -0.2109"
        );

        // Pressure must be O(rho U^2), not O(0). A near-zero pressure field is
        // the signature of a correction that is not coupling to the momentum
        // equation at all.
        let mut p_max = 0.0_f64;
        for j in 0..ny {
            for i in 0..nx {
                p_max = p_max.max(flow_field.p[(j, i)].abs());
            }
        }
        assert!(
            p_max > 0.1,
            "peak pressure {p_max:.3e} is far below the rho U^2 scale of 1.0; \
             the pressure field is not being driven"
        );

        // Verify physical correctness
        // 1. Check mass conservation (div(u) ≈ 0)
        // Note: compute_max_divergence would need to be implemented
        // For now, we'll just check that velocity field is reasonable

        // 2. Check that maximum velocity is at the lid
        // Find max u-velocity manually
        let mut u_max = 0.0_f64;
        let mut u_max_loc = (0, 0);
        for i in 0..nx {
            for j in 0..ny {
                if let Ok((u, _)) = flow_field.get_velocity_at(i, j) {
                    if u > u_max {
                        u_max = u;
                        u_max_loc = (i, j);
                    }
                }
            }
        }
        assert!(
            u_max_loc.1 >= ny - 5,
            "Maximum u-velocity should be near the lid"
        );
        assert!(u_max <= 1.1, "Max velocity should be reasonable");

        // 3. Check center vortex characteristics for Re=100
        let (u_center, v_center) = flow_field.get_velocity_at(nx / 2, ny / 2)?;
        assert!(
            u_center.abs() < 0.5,
            "Center u-velocity should be reasonable"
        );
        assert!(
            v_center.abs() < 0.5,
            "Center v-velocity should be reasonable"
        );

        Ok(())
    }

    /// The same Re = 100 cavity with the deferred-correction TVD scheme.
    ///
    /// First-order upwind's numerical viscosity is what holds the 65^2
    /// centreline minimum near -0.19 against Ghia's -0.2109; a second-order
    /// convective flux removes most of that viscosity, so this measures how
    /// far the cavity closes on the reference once the scheme, rather than
    /// the resolution, stops being the limit.
    #[tokio::test]
    async fn test_lid_driven_cavity_re100_tvd() -> CfdResult<()> {
        use rtx_cfd::solvers::incompressible::ConvectionScheme;

        let config = CfdConfig::new()
            .with_density(1.0)
            .with_viscosity(1e-2)
            .with_reference_velocity(1.0)
            .with_reference_length(1.0);

        let params = SimpleParameters::default()
            .with_pressure_relaxation(0.3)
            .with_velocity_relaxation(0.7)
            .with_max_iterations(20000)
            .with_convection_scheme(ConvectionScheme::TvdVanAlbada)
            // Same corner-singularity floor as the upwind test above.
            .with_tolerance(2e-4);

        let mut solver = SimpleSolver::new(config, params)?;

        let nx = 65;
        let ny = 65;
        let dx = 1.0 / (nx as f64 - 1.0);
        let dy = 1.0 / (ny as f64 - 1.0);
        let mut flow_field = FlowField::new(nx, ny, dx, dy)?;

        let mut bcs = BoundaryConditions::new();
        for location in [
            BoundaryLocation::Left,
            BoundaryLocation::Right,
            BoundaryLocation::Bottom,
            BoundaryLocation::Top,
        ] {
            bcs.add_boundary_condition(location, BoundaryType::FreeSlipWall);
        }
        let domain_top = ny as f64 * dy;
        solver.set_wall_velocity(move |_x, y| {
            if y > 0.5 * domain_top {
                (1.0, 0.0)
            } else {
                (0.0, 0.0)
            }
        });
        flow_field.apply_boundary_conditions(&bcs)?;

        let result = solver.solve(&mut flow_field, &bcs).await?;
        assert!(
            result.solver_result.converged,
            "TVD cavity did not converge: residual {:.3e} after {} iterations",
            result.solver_result.final_residual, result.solver_result.iterations
        );

        let mut u_min = 0.0_f64;
        let mut y_at_min = 0.0_f64;
        for j in 0..ny {
            let (u, _) = flow_field.get_velocity_at(nx / 2, j)?;
            if u < u_min {
                u_min = u;
                y_at_min = j as f64 / (ny - 1) as f64;
            }
        }
        println!(
            "  TVD 65^2 cavity: u_min = {u_min:.4} at y = {y_at_min:.4}  \
             (Ghia: -0.2109 at 0.4531)   iterations = {}",
            result.solver_result.iterations
        );

        // Measured: u_min = -0.2036 at y = 0.4844, in 790 iterations. Upwind
        // on the same mesh reads -0.1932 at 0.5000, so the TVD scheme closes
        // 59% of the remaining gap to Ghia's -0.2109 at equal resolution. The
        // band is set around what the scheme delivers and excludes the upwind
        // value: falling back to first order is the regression this test is
        // here to catch.
        assert!(
            (-0.215..-0.195).contains(&u_min),
            "centreline minimum {u_min:.4} outside the band the TVD scheme \
             warrants at 65^2 (measured -0.2036; upwind gives -0.1932; \
             Ghia -0.2109)"
        );

        // Position: 0.4844 against Ghia's 0.4531, down from upwind's 0.5000.
        // The gridline spacing is 1/64, so the reading is quantised; the upper
        // bound excludes 0.5000 exactly because that is the upwind value.
        assert!(
            (0.44..0.50).contains(&y_at_min),
            "primary vortex at y = {y_at_min:.4}, outside the TVD band \
             (measured 0.4844; Ghia 0.4531; upwind reads 0.5000)"
        );

        Ok(())
    }

    #[tokio::test]
    async fn test_simple_pressure_correction() -> CfdResult<()> {
        // Test that pressure correction step actually corrects mass balance
        let config = CfdConfig::new().with_density(1.0).with_viscosity(1e-3);

        let params = SimpleParameters::new()
            .with_pressure_relaxation(0.3)
            .with_velocity_relaxation(0.7);

        let mut solver = SimpleSolver::new(config, params)?;

        let nx = 16;
        let ny = 16;
        let dx = 0.1;
        let dy = 0.1;

        let mut flow_field = FlowField::new(nx, ny, dx, dy)?;

        // Create artificial mass imbalance
        for i in 1..nx - 1 {
            for j in 1..ny - 1 {
                flow_field.set_velocity(i, j, 0.1 * (i as f64), 0.1 * (j as f64))?;
            }
        }

        // Note: Direct pressure correction step testing would require internal solver API
        // For now, we test that the solver can perform a time step
        let result = solver
            .solve_time_step(&mut flow_field, &BoundaryConditions::new(), 0.01)
            .await?;
        assert!(
            result.solver_result.final_residual >= 0.0,
            "Residual should be non-negative"
        );

        Ok(())
    }

    #[tokio::test]
    async fn test_simple_momentum_prediction() -> CfdResult<()> {
        // Test momentum equation solution (prediction step)
        let config = CfdConfig::new().with_density(1.0).with_viscosity(1e-2);

        let params = SimpleParameters::default();
        let mut solver = SimpleSolver::new(config, params)?;

        let nx = 16;
        let ny = 16;
        let dx = 0.1;
        let dy = 0.1;

        let mut flow_field = FlowField::new(nx, ny, dx, dy)?;

        // Setup simple shear flow
        for i in 0..nx {
            for j in 0..ny {
                let y = j as f64 * dy;
                flow_field.set_velocity(i, j, y, 0.0)?; // Linear shear
            }
        }

        let dt = 0.001;

        // Store initial kinetic energy - calculate manually
        let mut initial_ke = 0.0;
        for i in 0..nx {
            for j in 0..ny {
                if let Ok((u, v)) = flow_field.get_velocity_at(i, j) {
                    initial_ke += 0.5 * (u * u + v * v);
                }
            }
        }

        // Apply a time step
        let _result = solver
            .solve_time_step(&mut flow_field, &BoundaryConditions::new(), dt)
            .await?;

        // Verify that momentum equations are being solved
        // (viscous diffusion should change the velocity field)
        let mut final_ke = 0.0;
        for i in 0..nx {
            for j in 0..ny {
                if let Ok((u, v)) = flow_field.get_velocity_at(i, j) {
                    final_ke += 0.5 * (u * u + v * v);
                }
            }
        }

        // With viscosity, kinetic energy should not increase excessively
        assert!(
            final_ke <= initial_ke * 1.5,
            "Kinetic energy should not increase excessively"
        );

        Ok(())
    }

    #[tokio::test]
    async fn test_simple_under_relaxation() -> CfdResult<()> {
        // Test that under-relaxation factors work correctly
        let config = CfdConfig::default();

        // Test with strong under-relaxation
        let params_conservative = SimpleParameters::default()
            .with_pressure_relaxation(0.1)
            .with_velocity_relaxation(0.1);

        // Test with weak under-relaxation
        let params_aggressive = SimpleParameters::default()
            .with_pressure_relaxation(0.8)
            .with_velocity_relaxation(0.8);

        let solver_conservative = SimpleSolver::new(config.clone(), params_conservative)?;
        let solver_aggressive = SimpleSolver::new(config, params_aggressive)?;

        // Both should have different relaxation parameters
        assert_ne!(
            solver_conservative.parameters().pressure_relaxation,
            solver_aggressive.parameters().pressure_relaxation
        );

        Ok(())
    }

    #[tokio::test]
    async fn test_simple_parameters_validation() -> CfdResult<()> {
        // Test parameter validation - with_pressure_relaxation clamps to non-negative
        let params = SimpleParameters::default().with_pressure_relaxation(-0.1); // Invalid: negative relaxation

        // Should clamp to 0.0 (see with_pressure_relaxation implementation)
        assert!(params.pressure_relaxation >= 0.0);

        let params2 = SimpleParameters::default().with_pressure_relaxation(1.5); // Potentially unstable but valid

        assert_eq!(params2.pressure_relaxation, 1.5);

        Ok(())
    }
}