Explicit validator for IMAS core_profiles IDS. #1866
Conversation
copybara-service
bot
force-pushed
the
test_846714287
branch
2 times, most recently
from
56d492c to
76ac7b6
Compare
copybara-service
bot
changed the title
copybara-service
bot
force-pushed
the
test_846714287
branch
2 times, most recently
from
c7bfcbe to
ae47fed
Compare
PiperOrigin-RevId: 846714287
copybara-service
bot
force-pushed
the
test_846714287
branch
from
ae47fed to
9f4d52d
Compare
MateoBell
left a comment
MateoBell
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
And just a general comment do you think it would be relevant to have a flag to raise error if any value is missing ? We talked about it before but I think its okay without.
|
|
||
|
|
||
| def _validate_profile_conditions(ids: ids_toplevel.IDSToplevel) -> None: | ||
| """Validates the profiles_conditions IDS.""" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit: validates core_profiles IDS for profiles_conditions
|
|
||
| def _validate_profile_conditions(ids: ids_toplevel.IDSToplevel) -> None: | ||
| """Validates the profiles_conditions IDS.""" | ||
| for profiles_1d in ids.profiles_1d: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If any quantity, e.g density is missing in each profiles_1d (i.e at each time slice), it might get a bit verbose as it will give a warning for every time slice ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
good point. Would it be sufficient to only check the first slice? Could we assume the rest have the same structure?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
for now as we only check if it is filled, I think so. If we go further to check positivity of temp and densities or other things we might need to check all time slices.
2 participants
Explicit validator for IMAS core_profiles IDS.