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

Improve representation of configuration parameters #1

Open
2 tasks
forman opened this issue May 16, 2017 · 6 comments
Open
2 tasks

Improve representation of configuration parameters #1

forman opened this issue May 16, 2017 · 6 comments

Comments

@forman
Copy link
Member

forman commented May 16, 2017

  • Provide datatype or choice for values, e.g. distinguish between int, float, str, and flags are not always boolean (choices)
  • Some parameters have dependencies, e.g. enablement of float parameters on selected flag
@hans-permana
Copy link
Contributor

A solution has been proposed. https://github.com/DeDop/dedop-core/wiki/Dedop-Configuration-with-Schema. It uses JSON schema specification.

@hans-permana
Copy link
Contributor

This has been discussed with @forman and the approach will be using descriptor instead of schema https://github.com/DeDop/dedop-core/wiki/Dedop-Configuration-with-Descriptor because it is simpler and exactly what is required at this point.

@mark-ep
Copy link
Member

mark-ep commented Jun 8, 2017

The descriptor file seems like a good system to me. I doubt we will ever need dependency conditions as elaborate as some of the examples (checking if another parameter is equal to a specific value is almost certainly enough).

Do you think there's any need to include the __metainf__ and changelog in the descriptor, or is it sufficient to only include it in the auxiliary files themselves?

@hans-permana
Copy link
Contributor

Hi Mark,

The metainf shall be in the descriptor and the version number shall be referred by the configuration files themselves. The example in the wiki has been modified to reflect this. I have also added a comment on the "is_true" and "is_null" conditions to indicate that these are not to be implemented right now.

If you agree with the updated format, could you update all the configuration files to reflect the changes? I will update the backend and frontend accordingly.

@mark-ep
Copy link
Member

mark-ep commented Jun 15, 2017

Hi,

following our conversation earlier in the week, I've updated the default CNF file in dedop-core. All default values now have the correct type, and any dependencies are mentioned in the parameter descriptions.

The CST and CHD files didn't need to be updated.

@hans-permana
Copy link
Contributor

Hi Mark, thanks for the updates. For configurations that have a "NOT YET IMPLEMENTED" as value, should they be hidden from the configuration editor?

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

No branches or pull requests

3 participants