additional SBM features to nurbs_curve_on_surface_geometry

[NickNick9]

📝 Description
We have added to the nurbs_curve_on_surface_geometry the possibility of considering an SBM brep surface.
Instead of using the method ComputeAxisIntersection, in the SBM case we use a different one called ComputeAxisIntersectionSBM (that only looks for intersections on the knot vertices).

Moreover, we have also added the SBM case in the CreareQuadraturePoints method in the same file.

IgaApplication
Geometry

[AlejandroCornejo]

const?

[rubenzorrilla]

I need to do a further review, but at first glance, I'm not a big fan of adding a geometry that depends on the method... In other words, I don't really like the IS_SBM stuff. Can you please justify its need?

[NickNick9]

@rubenzorrilla > I need to do a further review, but at first glance, I'm not a big fan of adding a geometry that depends on the method... In other words, I don't really like the IS_SBM stuff. Can you please justify its need?

@NickNick9
The fact is that our SBM stuff is very similar to the IBRA one. So we basically use the same geometries, but at the very end, we only cut along the knot vertices. So in more than one place, we have to differentiate between the two (Create an additional function SpansLocalSpace_SBM would be complex because it is called in many other places and still we would need a flag I guess). We are planning to use the IS_SBM when we create the gauss points for example.

So my reason is: SBM and IBRA conceptually are very similar, we want a flag that says which approach you want to use when you have to deal with the un-fitted boundary in IGA.

[rubenzorrilla]

Overall makes sense. Nevertheless, I'd indicate the upcoming changes with code comments. Specially the unification of the SBM and the untrimmed cases, which is something that IMO must be done for sure (most probably in a future PR).

[rubenzorrilla]

Overall makes sense. Nevertheless, I'd indicate the upcoming changes with code comments. Specially the unification of the SBM and the untrimmed cases, which is something that IMO must be done for sure (most probably in a future PR).

Did you already add the comments I mentioned in here? (I did not find them).

[rubenzorrilla]

All my initial concerns have been addressed (aside of the unification of the traditional and SBM integration points creation, which will be done in an upcoming PR).