Skip to content
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

FMI 3.0: TypeDefinitions and ModelVariables have a different definition style #561

Open
MartinOtter opened this Issue Mar 15, 2019 · 1 comment

Comments

Projects
None yet
3 participants
@MartinOtter
Copy link
Member

MartinOtter commented Mar 15, 2019

In ModelVariables a new variable is defined as:

<ModelVariables>
   <Float64 name = "var1"/>
   <Float64 name = "var2"/>
</ModelVariables>

However, in TypeDefinitions a new type is defined as:

<TypeDefinitions>
   <SimpleType name = "Mass">
         <Float64 unit="kg"/>
  </SimpleType>
   <SimpleType name = "Velocity">
         <Float64 unit="m/s"/>
  </SimpleType>
</TypeDefinitions>

It would be better to use the same style as for ModelVariables and define a type more compactly as:

<TypeDefinitions>
   <Float64 name = "Mass" unit="kg"/>
   <Float64 name = "Velocity" unit="m/s"/>
</TypeDefinitions>
@chrbertsch

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

chrbertsch commented Mar 22, 2019

FMI Regular design meeting:
Makes sense to do this consistently.
This will also change the modeldescription.xml

Is there a problem that we define a mass for 64bit and 32bit?
It must be unique over the data type. (has to be described in the documentation.)

Use same inheritance for types as for variables as proposed.

Torsten S. will try this out in fmpy and test fmus

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.