-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 35
Simplify Parameter Handling #829
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #829 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 84.11% 84.25% +0.14%
==========================================
Files 40 40
Lines 3551 3780 +229
==========================================
+ Hits 2987 3185 +198
- Misses 564 595 +31
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
Per discussion 5/12/2021:
How do we want When we replace a component with a new component, but choose to maintain all old connections with the That said, we might need to add in some new
How do we want to handle defaults from composites? Each parameter in the tree of a composite component will get an unshared external parameter, including defaults, so the behavior should not be different than non-composite components. This is already the case, just adding testing. We do need to think through parameters bubbled up using the collision-avoiding syntax like
Question: How do we (1) not break old behavior where we gave a parameter distribution to a default value (and thus shared named external parameter) in the simulation definition and (2) handle unshared parameters and defaults goign forward. |
Next Steps ...
|
Handles a bunch of issues summarized in #812
Corresponding necessary model updates: