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

Issue617 refactor service with history 2 #652

Merged
merged 253 commits into from
Nov 12, 2024

Conversation

dhblum
Copy link
Collaborator

@dhblum dhblum commented Jul 1, 2024

This is for #617 and #671 and in place of #622. It does everything from #622, but merges the Service architecture in a way to include the nrel/boptest-service git history.

kbenne and others added 30 commits September 24, 2020 09:55
Working (although incomplete) twoday example
Update API and add example controller
There is global attribution at the project root
Use redis messages to generate results as they are requested, instead of
the very time consuming approach of computing them on every step
Remove some unwanted Alfalfa isms
The exceptions are the min/max test, plus julia and javascript tests
@kbenne
Copy link
Contributor

kbenne commented Oct 31, 2024

Or yeah.. Like you said @javiarrobas, we could just explicitly enumerate them in a list.

@dhblum
Copy link
Collaborator Author

dhblum commented Oct 31, 2024

Huzzah! 🎉 Thank you @javiarrobas for continuing to try. One thing I'm curious about is still why it got stuck if there was a valid .fmu in that directory? Regarding the point of explicit list, we may think about if that list should be in any way accessible so anyone who wants to load in their own test case when running on their machine/setup can. But that goes back to my initial question, I wonder why it got stuck.

@javiarrobas
Copy link
Contributor

One thing I'm curious about is still why it got stuck if there was a valid .fmu in that directory?

That's because it was not a valid .fmu file but an empty folder called wrapped.fmu. Don't ask me why it was there though because I don't know 😅

@dhblum
Copy link
Collaborator Author

dhblum commented Nov 1, 2024

Ohh ok, I see!

@dhblum
Copy link
Collaborator Author

dhblum commented Nov 6, 2024

@javiarrobas @kbenne @EttoreZ I've addressed all Javier's comments (including a proposed readme convergence), Kyle's implemented updates from ADRENALIN, and Ettore's helped with updating some utility scripts to work with the new architecture.

I think this PR is very very close to being ready to merge. Nothing more comes to my mind to be done at this point, except for a protection that was mentioned against what happened with Javier, but perhaps we save that for a specific issue on it's own as an enhancement?

Can you all review/test a final time(s) and let me know any further comments or issues to be addressed? If you're ok with merging, please approve the github review. Note that I expect pending tests to pass.

Copy link
Contributor

@javiarrobas javiarrobas left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looking good! I agree to address the safeguard mechanism for the issue I had in a separate issue.

Copy link
Contributor

@EttoreZ EttoreZ left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The pr looks good to me and it’s ready to be merged.

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.

7 participants