Allow func_type=0 for UFF Data-Set 58 to Enable General Data Storage

[Nuopel]

Hello,
I'm trying to use func_type = 0 with data-set 58 for a workaround data saving.

However it restricted to [1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9]:

def _write58(fh, dset, mode='add', _filename=None, force_double=True):
    """Writes function at nodal DOF - data-set 58 - to an open file fh."""
    try:
        if not (dset['func_type'] in [1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9]):
            raise ValueError('Unsupported function type')

is there any reason to restrict to these types only ?
From a doc i found : https://www.ceas3.uc.edu/sdrluff/view.php :

Record 6: Format(2(I5
,I10),2(1X,10A1,I10,I4))
DOF Identification
Field 1 - Function Type
0 - General or Unknown
1 - Time Response
2 - Auto Spectrum
3 - Cross Spectrum
4 - Frequency Response Function
5 - Transmissibility
6 - Coherence
7 - Auto Correlation
8 - Cross Correlation
9 - Power Spectral Density (PSD)
10 - Energy Spectral Density (ESD)
11 - Probability Density Function
12 - Spectrum
13 - Cumulative Frequency Distribution
14 - Peaks Valley
15 - Stress/Cycles
16 - Strain/Cycles
17 - Orbit
18 - Mode Indicator Function
19 - Force Pattern
20 - Partial Power
21 - Partial Coherence
22 - Eigenvalue
23 - Eigenvector
24 - Shock Response Spectrum
25 - Finite Impulse Response Filter
26 - Multiple Coherence
27 - Order Function
which in fine is just about the referencing not changing anything from the data ? I not sure about it for all the Function Type but the 0 type should be fine ?

Description:

The _write58 function in pyuff currently restricts the func_type parameter to specific values ([1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9]), which prevents the use of func_type=0 (General or Unknown). According to the UFF standard documentation, func_type=0 is intended for general or unknown data.

Proposal:

Update _write58 to allow func_type=0, as it is defined in the UFF standard and does not impose any additional requirements on the data format. Maybe the others func_type too ?

Thanks,
Sam

[jankoslavic]

@Nuopel Thank you for opening this issue. This sound reasonable. It is a small change. Would you be willing to prepare a pull request with a small test?

[Nuopel]

@jankoslavic Thank you, i've added 0 and a small test, tell me if it's enough

[jankoslavic]

Great! Thank you for this PR!