More verbose namings GPU adds

[DanielDoehring]

I think st is really not obvious that it is connected to dg. mt is changed as well for consistency

[github-actions]

Review checklist

This checklist is meant to assist creators of PRs (to let them know what reviewers will typically look for) and reviewers (to guide them in a structured review process). Items do not need to be checked explicitly for a PR to be eligible for merging.

Purpose and scope

• The PR has a single goal that is clear from the PR title and/or description.
• All code changes represent a single set of modifications that logically belong together.
• No more than 500 lines of code are changed or there is no obvious way to split the PR into multiple PRs.

Code quality

• The code can be understood easily.
• Newly introduced names for variables etc. are self-descriptive and consistent with existing naming conventions.
• There are no redundancies that can be removed by simple modularization/refactoring.
• There are no leftover debug statements or commented code sections.
• The code adheres to our conventions and style guide, and to the Julia guidelines.

Documentation

• New functions and types are documented with a docstring or top-level comment.
• Relevant publications are referenced in docstrings (see example for formatting).
• Inline comments are used to document longer or unusual code sections.
• Comments describe intent ("why?") and not just functionality ("what?").
• If the PR introduces a significant change or new feature, it is documented in NEWS.md with its PR number.

Testing

• The PR passes all tests.
• New or modified lines of code are covered by tests.
• New or modified tests run in less then 10 seconds.

Performance

• There are no type instabilities or memory allocations in performance-critical parts.
• If the PR intent is to improve performance, before/after time measurements are posted in the PR.

Verification

• The correctness of the code was verified using appropriate tests.
• If new equations/methods are added, a convergence test has been run and the results
  are posted in the PR.

Created with ❤️ by the Trixi.jl community.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 50.00000% with 4 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 97.09%. Comparing base (4c3bf99) to head (af05b84).
⚠️ Report is 4 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/solvers/dgsem_p4est/dg_2d.jl	57.14%	3 Missing ⚠️
src/solvers/dgsem_structured/dg_2d.jl	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #2899   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   97.09%   97.09%           
=======================================
  Files         609      609           
  Lines       47484    47484           
=======================================
  Hits        46102    46102           
  Misses       1382     1382           

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	97.09% <50.00%> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[ranocha]

We used MeshT in many other places instead. Could you please unify this?

(I think @sloede suggested MeshT, correct?)

[ranocha]

This could be SolverT to mimic MeshT.

[benegee]

Thanks for catching this! This was unfortunately missed in #2590. I try to make the naming consistent in #2901.

[ranocha]

Can we close this given that #2901 has been merged?

[benegee]

Yes!