Time evolution operator in 1d

[edinvay]

The free particle time Schrodinger operator is ready for use.

[review-notebook-app]

Check out this pull request on 

See visual diffs & provide feedback on Jupyter Notebooks.

---

Powered by ReviewNB

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: 38 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (d8fd37e) 66.37% compared to head (6135804) 67.12%.

Files	Patch %	Lines
src/operators/HeatOperator.cpp	50.00%	10 Missing ⚠️
src/trees/OperatorNode.cpp	9.09%	10 Missing ⚠️
src/core/SchrodingerEvolution_CrossCorrelation.cpp	78.94%	8 Missing ⚠️
src/functions/special_functions.cpp	54.54%	5 Missing ⚠️
...lders/TimeEvolution_CrossCorrelationCalculator.cpp	88.88%	4 Missing ⚠️
src/operators/TimeEvolutionOperator.h	66.66%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #224      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   66.37%   67.12%   +0.74%     
==========================================
  Files         169      185      +16     
  Lines        9833    10104     +271     
==========================================
+ Hits         6527     6782     +255     
- Misses       3306     3322      +16     

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

[ilfreddy]

Nice work!
I've added a few comments. Mostly is style-related issues.

On top of that yon need to add unit testing to make sure that the functionality you have been adding to the code is not going to be broken by other changes in mrcpp, and a proper documentation.

But I'm looking forward to being able to see this at work!

[ilfreddy]

I believe the main thing missing now is unit testing. As you can see the whole TD code is basically untested. You should at this point write a few unit tests. You will then see that the "Codecov" comments will gradually disappear.

[ilfreddy]

Aside naming at this point you need testing before this can be merged. This is mostly for your own sake. You don't want to end up in a situation where some modification in MRCPP will end up breaking the TD part.
As for naming I give up for now, but if everybody keeps their own "conventions" the code base becomes a mess. So it will have to adhere to the standard at some point.