[discussion-215] New SNIFFER_PROBES IDS#239
Conversation
DavidPCoster
left a comment
DavidPCoster
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I approve the skeleton -- it would be good to see some flesh, though ...
|
We are still missing many reviews on this PR, please ... |
olivhoenen
left a comment
olivhoenen
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I approve the skeleton -- it would be good to see some flesh, though ...
I agree with @DavidPCoster here, the current stab for this new IDS seems not ready for addition in the develop branch. History of DD have shown that releasing IDS in too early draft version can be an annoyance for users (as for maintainers) on the long term.
If the idea is to have a draft structure for further testing and refining of the IDS, we can redirect it into a feature branch with to-be-tested label.
| </xs:complexType> | ||
| </xs:element> | ||
| <xs:element ref="code"/> | ||
| <xs:element ref="time"/> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In its current version the IDS is fully static, so it should not even have a time node (or dynamic signals shall be defined and added, which may help shape the structure)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Indeed, so since the dynamic part isn't specified yet I have removed the time node.
…e node since at this stage the IDS contains only machine description
…ut any dynamic node
SimonPinches
left a comment
SimonPinches
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think these probes are exclusively used to detect the power density of stray EC radiation so we should make this clearer in the naming of the IDS. My proposal is therefore to rename to ec_sniffer_probes. I assume we go with the plural form since in general machines have multiple probes and not just one.
| </xs:element> | ||
| <xs:element name="code" type="code_constant"> | ||
| <xs:annotation> | ||
| <xs:documentation>Description of code-specific parameters</xs:documentation> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This doesn't sound like machine description data (which is all that's in the IDS from what's written above). And in addition to the code-specific parameters, don't we also need to identify the code?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The identification of the code is also described in this structure, which is like the standard one, only the dynamic output_flag is removed
Co-authored-by: Simon Pinches <SimonPinches@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Simon Pinches <SimonPinches@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Simon Pinches <SimonPinches@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Simon Pinches <SimonPinches@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Simon Pinches <SimonPinches@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Simon Pinches <SimonPinches@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Simon Pinches <SimonPinches@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Simon Pinches <SimonPinches@users.noreply.github.com>
olivhoenen
added
the
to be tested
|
Redirected this draft to a feature branch so requesters can test and update the description before a release |
8 participants
Static description only so far
📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://imas-data-dictionary--239.org.readthedocs.build/en/239/