-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 91
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
Fixing the affect of custom isotopics on material density #1822
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
21 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
7b258d4
Strawman fix for the custom isotopics for testing.
jakehader d7f2f91
Merge branch 'main' into customIsotopicsStrawman
keckler 1290e14
Remove print statements and fix black formatting
keckler fd831ca
Fix improperly resolved merge conflict
keckler 895e61b
Refactor some runLog prints
keckler db06fd4
Add some TODOs for reviewers to think about
keckler 55d8c13
Pass in the correct recursive args)
keckler 3965082
Fix test
keckler d978533
Fix unit tests that were broken from the start
keckler 6a06967
Pass just the boolean inputHeightsConsideredHot down the chain, inste…
keckler befd6a7
Clean things up
keckler d59e8ab
Make it an error when the density for a material is overspecified
keckler c1270df
Fix runLog statement
keckler 53ff4d3
Fix test that changed due to a different runLog statement
keckler 4fc8012
Update runLog statement for clarity
keckler 2cfe89b
Remove TODO
keckler e483fef
Update test for runLog wording change
keckler 7da315a
Add release notes
keckler c33c893
Update doc/release/0.5.rst
keckler 2f27761
Merge branch 'main' into customIsotopicsStrawman
keckler d85cc1e
Merge branch 'customIsotopicsStrawman' of https://github.com/terrapow…
keckler File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Okay, so the variable name here is strange. Because "input heights" makes sense if this Component is part of an
Assembly
in some way, sure.But
Components
are a very general idea of the leaf of the data model. They don't have to be in a pin-type reactor.What do you think?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Also, maybe this new parameter should have a default value? What do you think?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This parameter and its name are directly copied from the case setting of the same name. I tried to reflect that intention in the docstring, but maybe I could be more clear there.
When Jake put up the draft PR, he was originally passing an entire case settings object down to this level. I did away with that because I find it frustrating when I have to whip up an entire
cs
just for a single boolean.So I made the name for this parameter exactly the same as the case setting whose value should be passed down here. I thought that made things simpler, but if you think it'd be more clear either (1) with a different name, or (2) if we passed the entire
cs
, then I am open to those options.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
With respect to a default value...
I'm not sure how I feel there.
On the one hand, we could potentially make the default be the same as the default for the
inputHeightsConsideredHot
case setting (True
). On the other hand, I really don't like that because the default on that case setting is the opposite of our typical workflow at this point in time (i.e. having axial expansion turned on).I think my ideal solution would be if there were a way to not have to pass the value via method calls. But the only way I could conceive to do that is to store a
cs
on theComponentBlueprint
, and that is something I really don't want to do.Maybe you see a clean way to get around all this?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It is definitely better to pass one value instead of the entire settings object. For sure. Nice.
I suppose "input dimensions considered hot" would have been a more accurate name for that setting. But the people who created it were definitely thinking of pin-type reactors.