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

Adding impl/test crumbs for requirements #1507

Merged
merged 7 commits into from
Nov 29, 2023
Merged

Conversation

john-science
Copy link
Member

What is the change?

Adding impl/test crumbs for assorted requirements.

Why is the change being made?

This is part of on-going requirements work.


Checklist

  • The release notes (location doc/release/0.X.rst) are up-to-date with any important changes.
  • The documentation is still up-to-date in the doc folder.
  • No requirements were altered.
  • The dependencies are still up-to-date in pyproject.toml.

@john-science john-science added documentation Improvements or additions to documentation testing Related to tests labels Nov 29, 2023
@keckler keckler self-requested a review November 29, 2023 19:16
Comment on lines 294 to 297
.. impl:: Any depletable component will be adjusted.
:id: I_ARMI_BP_NUC_FLAGS
:implements: R_ARMI_BP_NUC_FLAGS

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I don't think this is in the most appropriate place? I would assume this would be better put into somewhere in isotopicOptions, but let me know if I'm misunderstanding your intent.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hm, or maybe this is just one part of it. I guess the user needs to define composite objects with the DEPLETABLE flag, which would happen in other parts of the blueprints.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This is just a "blueprint requirement", so I put it in the most general place in the blueprints.

That's really as far as my thought process went.

Hmmm

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Okay, well it is good where it is, by the logic of my second comment above. But during the upcoming "real" review, I anticipate we'll probably ask for another impl in the isotopicOptions.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Updated. Take a look.

@john-science john-science requested a review from keckler November 29, 2023 23:17
Copy link
Member

@keckler keckler left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for the additions!

@john-science john-science merged commit 7de33eb into main Nov 29, 2023
21 checks passed
@john-science john-science deleted the panko_panko_panko branch November 29, 2023 23:38
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 testing Related to tests
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants