fix parsing and writing of COMPARAM-SPEC #243
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
andlaus
force-pushed
the
comparam_spec_fixes
branch
from
d0c1722 to
dee3122
Compare
kayoub5
reviewed
Nov 21, 2023
kayoub5
reviewed
Nov 21, 2023
kayoub5
reviewed
Nov 21, 2023
It turns out that files containing "COMPARAM-SPEC" root elements were ignored for PDX files using ODX 2.2. (also, the writing code got slightly broken recently.) I'm not 100% sure if this still works with ODX 2.0, though... Signed-off-by: Andreas Lauser <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Florian Jost <[email protected]>
proposed by [at]kayoub5. Thanks! Signed-off-by: Andreas Lauser <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Florian Jost <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Andreas Lauser <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Florian Jost <[email protected]>
andlaus
force-pushed
the
comparam_spec_fixes
branch
from
dcb7d2f to
d2f9ce9
Compare
Signed-off-by: Andreas Lauser <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Florian Jost <[email protected]>
kayoub5
reviewed
Nov 21, 2023
odxtools/database.py
Outdated
|
|
||
| cp_spec = root.find("COMPARAM-SPEC") | ||
| if cp_spec is not None: | ||
| comparam_specs.append(ComparamSpec.from_et(cp_spec, [])) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This may look strange at first, but between 2.0 and 2.2 only the XML tag changed, the content of the COMPARAM-SPEC in 2.0 is basically a COMPARAM-SUBSET in 2.2
This way the code needed for 2.0 support remains minimal
Suggested change
| comparam_specs.append(ComparamSpec.from_et(cp_spec, [])) | |
| comparam_specs.append(ComparamSubset.from_et(cp_spec, [])) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ah, I see. it's better to append these objects to comparam_subsets then, though? (This would also make conversion of datasets from odx 2.0 to 2.2 easier.) I've implemented it this way for now: adf3dfb
It seems like what ODX 2.0 calls "COMPARAM-SPEC" is called "COMPARAM-SUBSET" in ODX 2.2. Let's thus always use `.comparam_subset` for these objects. thanks to [at]kayoub5 for the clarifications. Signed-off-by: Andreas Lauser <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Florian Jost <[email protected]>
andlaus
force-pushed
the
comparam_spec_fixes
branch
from
4985121 to
adf3dfb
Compare
kayoub5
approved these changes
Nov 21, 2023
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
It turns out that files containing "COMPARAM-SPEC" root elements were ignored for PDX files using ODX 2.2. (also, the writing code got slightly broken recently.)
I'm not 100% sure if this still works with ODX 2.0 files, though...
Andreas Lauser <[email protected]>, on behalf of MBition GmbH.
Provider Information