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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

78: Add parameter relation config to simulator workflow in workflow_c… #83

Draft
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

78: Add parameter relation config to simulator workflow in workflow_c… #83

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
176e317
78: Add parameter relation config to simulator workflow in workflow_c…
lfse-slafleur Nov 26, 2024
fb3f9b2
Merge branch 'main' into 78-add-variable-conditional-relations-in-wor…
lfse-slafleur Nov 28, 2024
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
7 changes: 7 additions & 0 deletions config/workflow_config.json
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -33,6 +33,13 @@
"parameter_type": "datetime",
"key_name": "end_time"
}
],
"parameter_relations": [
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Would parameter_constraints be a suitable name? (I was thinking of how such a case would be handled in the world of SQL.)

Also wondering if instead of declaring parameter_relations at this json level (which is completely fine), would it be more intuitive for users to define it at the parameter level. For instance:

{
      "parameter_type": "datetime",
      "key_name": "start_time",
      "constraints: [
           {
              "relation": "smaller",
              "key_2": "end_time"
            }
        ]
      "
},

Although not sure if it would make it more complicated in SDK code.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes I agree, both with the 'constraints' naming and placing inside a parameter description. I would name key_2 as other_parameter.

It would be more intuitive and you can control which of the two parameters is constraint, and therefore gets the warning. For instance, if end_time is not larger than start_time I only want a warning on the end_time parameter for the mapeditor case. In some other situation you would want both parameters to get a warning.

{
"key_1": "start_time",
"key_2": "end_time",
"relation": "smaller"
}
]
}
]
Loading