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

Add more documentation for loading reactors from database #75

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 15, 2020

Conversation

youngmit
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@youngmit youngmit requested review from ntouran and onufer May 15, 2020 19:23
Copy link
Member

@ntouran ntouran left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Poetic!

Copy link
Member

@onufer onufer left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Minor comments, great step forward in documentation. approved. Ignore comments after reading them if you like.

Thanks for updating!

@@ -67,6 +67,15 @@
from .factory import databaseFactory


__all__ = [
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Might be good to add a comment describing why you need to redefine what the import * does for this module.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@youngmit youngmit May 15, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It doesn't redefine, it defines what import * does for the package. So adding a comment to that effect would be duplicating the python docs for __all__

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sure, I understand that, but there is some default behavior. from armi.bookkeping.db import * will do something whether or not you define all. This is why I used the word "redefine", but I don't want to split hairs on semantics.

I wasn't saying you should explain what this does. That is obvious, but rather why you are doing it. Why do we need special behavior here?

@@ -455,9 +455,7 @@
"metadata": {},
"source": [
"## Loading from the database\n",
"Once you have a database, you can load an operator object which has access to the reactor and case settings file.\n",
"\n",
"Warning: While the reactor is in the same state as it was when we wrote the database, the operator may not be. This is because ARMI uses the parameter system to load state, and only the reactor and its children have parameters. Furthermore, anything not stored in a paramter is not written to the database."
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I feel like there was value in the statement that was removed about anything not stored as a parameter is not in the database, as this applies to block local variables, etc.

@@ -8,6 +8,52 @@ the text of the input files that were used to create the case, and for each time
the values of all composite parameters as well as layout information to help fully
reconstruct the structure of the reactor model.

Loading Reactor State
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is really good. Thanks!


from armi.bookkeeping.db import databaseFactory

db = databaseFactory("myDatabase.h5", "r")
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It might be worthwhile at some point to have a default of "r" to the permission argument (not in this diff). The vast majority of time people will call this in scripts, it will be "r". To get a reactor, needing databasePath, cycle, and timeNode is pretty elegant. Needed to remember "r" as well is less so.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Optional arguments lead to ambiguity, which normally requires looking up the function docstring to resolve, so it would only be elegant to a person that is already intimately familiar with the API. Also, having the second argument lends parity all of the built-in open()-like functions throughout the python ecosystem.

Copy link
Member

@onufer onufer May 15, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

the built-in open() has a default of mode 'r' (just like I am suggesting)
https://docs.python.org/3/library/functions.html#open

I think making it a kwarg would lend more parity. Note also that open() had quite a few other kwargs that normal people don't use on a daily basis, but this doesn't mean I have to look up the doc strings constantly to resolve. I can't think of a time that I ever had a armi script where I want to load in the db in 'w' mode, but 'r' mode is extremely common.

@youngmit youngmit merged commit 9c26cbb into master May 15, 2020
@youngmit youngmit deleted the mty/dbDocs branch May 15, 2020 20:52
Copy link
Contributor Author

@youngmit youngmit left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for the comments!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants