Check tangential tolerances in PenetrationThread

[maxnezdyur]

closes #29777

[maxnezdyur]

This fixes a corner case. In which we have 3 penetration infos, all 3 of them are invalid but because the first 2 cause "NEITHER_WINS` causes the third option to win by default without checking if it is a valid info.

[GiudGiud]

Suggested change

	requirement = "The system will shall be able to ensure contact points are within tangential tolerances."
	requirement = "The system shall be able to ensure contact points are within tangential tolerances."

[bwspenc]

Actually, shouldn't it say "The system shall ensure contact points..."? We've been trying to avoid saying "be able to".

[GiudGiud]

but because the first 2 cause "NEITHER_WINS` causes the third option to win by default without checking if it is a valid info

I see the logic below for the comparisons between two and I m not sure this is the right fix. Seems like we are now discarding non-winning solutions earlier?

[GiudGiud]

looks like you wrote that part of the contact decision making logic @bwspenc

[moosebuild]

Job Documentation, step Docs: sync website on d572a3b wanted to post the following:

View the site here

This comment will be updated on new commits.

[moosebuild]

Job Coverage, step Generate coverage on d572a3b wanted to post the following:

Framework coverage

	4965c6	#29802 d572a3
	Total	Total	+/-	New
Rate	85.23%	85.23%	+0.00%	100.00%
Hits	108491	108492	+1	3
Misses	18794	18794	-	0

Diff coverage report

Full coverage report

Modules coverage

Coverage did not change

Full coverage reports

Reports

• framework
• chemical_reactions
• combined
• contact
• electromagnetics
• external_petsc_solver
• fluid_properties
• fsi
• functional_expansion_tools
• geochemistry
• heat_transfer
• level_set
• misc
• navier_stokes
• optimization
• peridynamics
• phase_field
• porous_flow
• ray_tracing
• rdg
• reactor
• richards
• scalar_transport
• solid_mechanics
• solid_properties
• stochastic_tools
• thermal_hydraulics
• xfem

This comment will be updated on new commits.

[maxnezdyur]

I see the logic below for the comparisons between two and I m not sure this is the right fix. Seems like we are now discarding non-winning solutions earlier?

With the fix we are discarding non-valid solutions at the last possible moment. When switch_info is called, that is when a solution is completely accepted. We have this tangential check in other parts of the code, but there was a corner case where it doesn't get found.