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

material modifications can be out of sync with the use of custom isotopics #1820

Open
keckler opened this issue Aug 13, 2024 · 1 comment
Open
Labels
documentation Improvements or additions to documentation good first issue Good for newcomers

Comments

@keckler
Copy link
Member

keckler commented Aug 13, 2024

A lot of our material classes utilize material modifications specified in the blueprints to do things like specify the enrichments of materials in the blocks. For instance:
image

We also now have the ability to specify custom isotopic vectors that are paired with material classes, in which case the custom isotopic will take precedence over the isotopics from the material class (see #1745 ).

To my knowledge, these two methods of specifying isotopics in the blueprints are able to conflict with each other without any warning being printed to the user. I assume that the material modifications are simply ignored with respect to the component's isotopics.

It would seem useful if the user were somehow informed of this situation, though it seems pretty difficult to make that happen without just blasting a warning anytime that the custom isotopic is specified on a component irrespective of if a material modification is used or not.

@john-science john-science added documentation Improvements or additions to documentation enhancement New feature or request labels Aug 25, 2024
@john-science john-science added good first issue Good for newcomers and removed enhancement New feature or request labels Aug 25, 2024
@john-science
Copy link
Member

I think this is the way to go:

It would seem useful if the user were somehow informed of this situation

We should check if the above scenario is true, but I really think it is. We should at least raise a warning if custom isotopics will over-write the material modifications. Perhaps a nice table of all such situations, printed to the log.

But I would also here the debate for raising an error. Though I would want to make sure that didn't break otherwise working downstream modeling.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
documentation Improvements or additions to documentation good first issue Good for newcomers
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants