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

Proposal: If there is just external field data, basePath should not be required. #231

Open
DavidSagan opened this issue Oct 31, 2020 · 2 comments
Labels
major change non-backwards compatible change
Projects

Comments

@DavidSagan
Copy link
Collaborator

DavidSagan commented Oct 31, 2020

It makes no sense to require definition of basePath if there is no particle or mesh data. External field data has its own path called externalFieldPath.

Proposal: Make basePath required only if there is particle or mesh data.

@DavidSagan DavidSagan added this to Proposed in 2.0.0 via automation Nov 4, 2020
@ax3l ax3l added the major change non-backwards compatible change label Nov 7, 2020
@ax3l
Copy link
Member

ax3l commented Nov 7, 2020

Thank you for the proposal.
I think an alternative with could be to just allow to define the meshesPath to ./, which means it is the exact basePath without further nesting.

External field data has its own path called externalFieldPath.
I don't understand this, that's not in the base standard.

@DavidSagan
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@ax3l I'm sorry I'm not following what you are proposing. What does meshesPath have to do with this? My understanding was that meshes were for internal fields and not external fields.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
major change non-backwards compatible change
Projects
2.0.0
  
Proposed
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants