Error when using particle fields , RZ geometry and Openpmd outputs

[PhysicsDan]

Description

Particle Fields do not work when using the openpmd backend in RZ geometry
(Only tested using the precompiled executable from conda)

Minimal Example

When adding the snippet

diag1.particle_fields_to_plot = z
diag1.particle_fields_species = electrons beam
diag1.particle_fields.z(x,y,z,ux,uy,uz) = z

to
inputs_test_rz_laser_acceleration_opmd
The code instantly fails with the error

Initializing AMReX (25.02)...
OMP initialized with 8 OMP threads
AMReX (25.02) initialized
PICSAR (25.01)
WarpX (Unknown)

    __        __             __  __
    \ \      / /_ _ _ __ _ __\ \/ /
     \ \ /\ / / _` | '__| '_ \\  /
      \ V  V / (_| | |  | |_) /  \
       \_/\_/ \__,_|_|  | .__/_/\_\
                        |_|

Level 0: dt = 1.72851157e-16 ; dx = 1.171875e-07 ; dz = 6.640625e-08
0::Assertion `ncomp_from_src == m_varnames.size()' failed, file "/Users/runner/miniforge3/conda-bld/warpx_1738873300730/work/Source/Diagnostics/FullDiagnostics.cpp", line 540 !!!
SIGABRT
See Backtrace.0.0 file for details

Backtrace

 0: amrex::BLBackTrace::print_backtrace_info(__sFILE*) (in libamrex_2d.dylib) + 64

 1: amrex::BLBackTrace::handler(int) (in libamrex_2d.dylib) + 640

 2: amrex::Assert_host(char const*, char const*, int, char const*) (in libamrex_2d.dylib) + 268

 3: FullDiagnostics::InitializeFieldFunctorsRZopenPMD(int) (in warpx.rz) + 7260

 4: Diagnostics::InitData() (in warpx.rz) + 152

 5: MultiDiagnostics::InitData() (in warpx.rz) + 32

 6: WarpX::InitData() (in warpx.rz) + 776

 7: main (in warpx.rz) + 76

 8: start (in dyld) + 2840


===== TinyProfilers ======
main()
WarpX::InitData()

However, when the snippet is added to this file (i.e. the same simulation but using the plotfile output type), there us no error
inputs_test_rz_laser_acceleration

Note, this is also not an issue in cartesian geometry as WarpX/Examples/Tests/particle_fields_diags also runs without any issue.

System information

MacOS 15.3
WarpX 25.02 via Conda

[ax3l]

Hi @PhysicsDan , thanks for the report!

Did you test if this still worked with 25.01? If yes, it's likely a regression to #5481