-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 191
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
High-level Simulation
type to manage time stepping
#621
Conversation
Simulation
type and a run!
simulation functionSimulation
type to manage time stepping
Ah so great. One quick thought: we can reinterpret time_step to refer only to a single time-step, and move the current multi step function to run! Then time_step does not take keyword arguments. Is there a convenience function that takes AbstractModel as input rather than Simulation? I think that’s important for simple scripts and examples. Agree this is a huge breaking change that we should finalize as soon as possible. |
From discussion with @glwagner:
|
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #621 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 74.53% 74.87% +0.34%
==========================================
Files 117 118 +1
Lines 2246 2277 +31
==========================================
+ Hits 1674 1705 +31
Misses 572 572
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
Simulation API is almost ready. Comments on some of the points above: Major breaking changes:
Still need to:
|
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.
Too much to review all the test edits, but this is epic. Onwards!
This PR introduces a
Simulation
type that manages time stepping with a high level interface.I think
diagnostics
andoutput_writers
will have to become keyword arguments totime_step!
.It will be a pretty big breaking change once we move
diagnostics
andoutput_writers
outside ofModel
so would be good to agree on the design and API before refactoring.@glwagner Let me know what you think, we can iterate on the design in this PR.
Resolves #432
Resolves #447