Smaller changes to parameters

[jenshnielsen]

This includes the changes from #774 and changes the set/get to imho be more logical
and resolves issues regarding using val_mapping and parers on parameters without a set/get method (What used to be manual paramters) (see test)

• Add typing to init functions
• Set private variables in constructors rather than using setters this fixes a number of warnings
• Change raw_value to unconditionally store the variable in machine format, this means that the get parser, inverse scaling and inverse val_mapping can always be applied
• change the order of finding step size and performing scaling, mapping etc. this means that steps are calculated in the unit of the user input which imho is more locical and enables calculation of raw_values for all steps
• rename the wrapped get/set methods to get_raw and set_raw.

[WilliamHPNielsen]

I think this looks good.

[nulinspiratie]

Hey @jenshnielsen had a look, and the changes look good! I also stumbled on a couple of them.
Only two things I came up with were

1. if we set the private variables in the constructor, won't this mean that the checks aren't performed? E.g. a parameter could have a negative step size if specified during initialization. What warnings did it give, and is there another way to deal with them?
2. I like the idea of being able to access the unwrapped get/set method via get_raw/set_raw, but this now only holds if created via the get_cmd/set_cmd. If we subclass the BaseParameter with a custom get/set we cannot access it via get_raw/set_raw. Would it be an idea to also specify get_raw/set_raw in BaseParameter (self.get_raw = self.get)?

[jenshnielsen]

1. It was a linter warning. I have reverted if for now. We can always look into this later
2. The logic to actually wrap the parameter is only implemented in Parameter, not in BaseParamter so if you subclass BaseParamter you will have to explicitly wrap your get command. You are of course free to use the wrapper in your subclass anyway as in you can implement a get_raw and wrap it in the subclass or implement a get command and either wrap it or not as works for your parameter.

[nulinspiratie]

The wrapping happens in the BaseParameter, not the Parameter. The Parameter only performs it's own wrapping if an explicit get/set_cmd is provided. The wrapper functionalities are meant to also be usable for other parameter types. Therefore I thought it would be a good idea to have get/set_raw also common for all parameter types

…

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017, 7:16 PM Jens Hedegaard Nielsen < ***@***.***> wrote: 1. It was a linter warning. I have reverted if for now. We can always look into this later 2. The logic to actually wrap the parameter is only implemented in Parameter, not in BaseParamter so if you subclass BaseParamter you will have to explicitly wrap your get command. You are of course free to use the wrapper in your subclass anyway as in you can implement a get_raw and wrap it in the subclass or implement a get command and either wrap it or not as works for your parameter. — You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#788 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AGgLHcLcx9E3AM0xx5z6xRXJ-ijtMQ2bks5srcrUgaJpZM4Pz7yn> .

[jenshnielsen]

Sorry missed that. Should be fixed now