You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I noticed the unit_type is specified within the branch of the unit itself. However, for the adsorption models and reaction models, the model is not defined on the same level as the parameters, but also on ‘unit-level’. It does not make a huge difference, but this might be also be worth considering. Certainly makes modular changes of the models easier, since only one branch needs to be exchanged instead of the parameter branch and the model field.
I noticed the
unit_type
is specified within the branch of the unit itself. However, for the adsorption models and reaction models, the model is not defined on the same level as the parameters, but also on ‘unit-level’. It does not make a huge difference, but this might be also be worth considering. Certainly makes modular changes of the models easier, since only one branch needs to be exchanged instead of the parameter branch and the model field.Unit operations (for reference):
Adsorption/Reactions (current):
Adsorption/Reactions (proposed):
In order to guarantee backwards compatibility, this could be implemented by either checking both locations and/or by implementing/fixing #18 .
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: