-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 164
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
Inconsistent partial model naming in Modelica.Magnetic #496
Comments
Comment by dietmarw on 4 Feb 2011 15:38 UTC if I understand your proposal correctly then the different classes would be defined as follows (taking
Did I understand this correctly? I'm not quite sure why the last group in your proposal ( |
Comment by christiankral on 4 Feb 2011 16:45 UTC
In this case I cannot make a graphical connection between the positive and negative pin when extending from this class. |
Comment by dietmarw on 4 Feb 2011 21:01 UTC |
Comment by dietmarw on 1 Aug 2015 21:36 UTC |
Comment by dietmarw on 1 Aug 2015 21:39 UTC |
I will create a PR to remove Partial from the names and fix the naming issue with of the TwoPorts. |
…ce models Magnetic.FundamentalWave
… interface models" This reverts commit 074762f.
Magnetic.FundamentalWave
Magnetic.QuasiStatic.FundamentalWave
Magnetic.QuasiStatic.FluxTubes
…ce models Magnetic.FundamentalWave
… interface models" This reverts commit 074762f.
Magnetic.FundamentalWave
Magnetic.QuasiStatic.FundamentalWave
Magnetic.QuasiStatic.FluxTubes
…ce models Magnetic.FundamentalWave
… interface models" This reverts commit 074762f.
…ce models Magnetic.FundamentalWave
… interface models" This reverts commit 074762f.
Magnetic.FundamentalWave
Magnetic.QuasiStatic.FundamentalWave
Magnetic.QuasiStatic.FluxTubes
…ce models Magnetic.FundamentalWave
… interface models" This reverts commit 074762f.
Magnetic.FundamentalWave
Magnetic.QuasiStatic.FundamentalWave
Magnetic.QuasiStatic.FluxTubes
Reopen since #2998 did not address Magnetic.FluxTubes. |
Refs #496: Fix inconsistent partial model naming of FluxTubes
When going through #3341 I realized that we still have two different naming conventions in the magnetic domain: The following list shows the difference w.r.t. the elementarty ports:
At the end one question remains: Other domains use, for example:
|
A quick search led me to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-port_network |
OK then. So I will create a PR to fix the names of
|
Closing again after merge of #3426. |
Reported by christiankral on 4 Feb 2011 14:18 UTC
The partial models
Interfaces.PartialTwoPortsElementary
andInterfaces.PartialTwoPorts
are implemented differently in the packages
Modelica.Magnetic.FluxTubes
andModelica.Magnetic.FundamentalWave
.Current Implementation
FluxTubes.Interfaces.PartialTwoPortsElementary
FluxTubes.Interfaces.PartialTwoPorts
FundamentalWave.Interfaces.PartialTwoPort
FundamentalWave.Interfaces.PartialTwoPortElementary
The naming of the partial models in the fundamental wave library is simply a bug.
Additional Issues
The term
port
used in the magnetic and thermal domain refers to a connector and it represents two pins or plugs in the electrical domains. We should come up with some clarification here. We should also unify whether or not we should used the termPartial
in the class name. We have various different implementations in the MSL.The implementation of partial models is even entirely different throughout the package
Modelica.Electrical
:Analog.Interfaces.TwoPin
is a partial model containingv
across pinsMultiPhase.Interfaces.TwoPlug
is a partial model containingv
across plugsi
into positive plugAnalog.Interfaces.OnePort
andMultiPhase.Interfaces.OnePort
are partial models with two pins or plugs, respectively [the problem here is that we are using the termport
as an abstraction for two pins and plugs, respectively, whereas this term is used differently, e.g, in the magnetic domain]; these partial models containv
across pins and plugs, respectivelyi
into positive pin and plug, respectivelyAnalog.Interfaces.TwoPort
andMultiPhase.Interfaces.TwoPort
are partial models with four pins or plugs, respectively; these partial models containv
across pins and plugs, respectivelyi
into positive pin (or plug)MultiPhase.Interfaces.FourPlug
containsv
across paris of plugs, respectivelyi
into positive plugsHowever, a unification of namings and implementations is highly desirable since all the differences are confusing to experienced and news users. I understand that we do need a conversion script for renaming partial models; so we do have wait for Modelica 4, I suppose.
Proposal
So here we have lot very different namings with different implementations. On my opinion we need three different partial model types:
TwoPinGeneric
,TwoPlugGeneric
, etc., which contains only the connectors; these are the most generic components; they are also used for sources and sensors since it may be undesired in these cases to have a pre defined variable for either the potential difference or the flow variableTwoPinElementary
,TwoPlugElementary
, etc., which contains the connectors and the definitions of the potential difference, e.g.,v
, and the flow variable into the positive connector, e.g.,i
; these models are mostly used for graphical programmingTwoPin
,TwoPlug
, orTwoPinBalanced
,TwoPlugBalanced
, etc., containing the flow balances in addition to theElemenary
named partial models; these models are used for textual programmingNaming may be discussed.
Migrated-From: https://trac.modelica.org/Modelica/ticket/496
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: