# Request for Review: CPEX-0050 - Solution Field Continuity Metadata in CGNS

**URL:** https://discourse.paraview.org/t/request-for-review-cpex-0050-solution-field-continuity-metadata-in-cgns/17532
**Category:** Development
**Created:** [April 23, 2026, 2:10pm UTC](https://discourse.paraview.org/t/request-for-review-cpex-0050-solution-field-continuity-metadata-in-cgns/17532 "2026-04-23T14:10:30Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![brtnfld](https://discourse.paraview.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/ea666f/32.png) [@brtnfld](https://discourse.paraview.org/u/brtnfld)
#### Post date: [April 23, 2026, 2:10pm UTC](https://discourse.paraview.org/t/request-for-review-cpex-0050-solution-field-continuity-metadata-in-cgns/17532/1 "2026-04-23T14:10:30Z")

</div>

Hello,

This concerns the recently proposed CGNS CPEX 50, which introduces solution-field continuity metadata into the CGNS standard. This extension allows CGNS to indicate whether a solution field is continuous or discontinuous. This capability will enable post-processors like ParaView and coupling frameworks to accurately interpret solution data without having to guess the layout.

I would greatly appreciate a review from the ParaView community and developers, focusing on, but not limited to, the following questions:

1. Are there any use cases or data layouts that you currently encounter that this proposal does not address?

2. Does the proposed SolutionContinuity\_t metadata integrate smoothly with your existing CGNS readers and subsequent interpretations?

3. Are there any edge cases regarding how you handle GridLocation\_t, PointList, or element-local degrees of freedom that it should consider?

Version 1 is at [https://cgns.org/\_downloads/3fa8f2c7e88714292be77ba08b7f8434/CPEX-0050-SolutionContinuity.pdf](https://cgns.org/_downloads/3fa8f2c7e88714292be77ba08b7f8434/CPEX-0050-SolutionContinuity.pdf)

Any feedback is welcome, including any use cases I may have overlooked. Thank you!  
Scot