-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 67
Update docs with changes to Transmute #261
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
Open
MetBenjaminWent
wants to merge
6
commits into
MetOffice:main
Choose a base branch
from
MetBenjaminWent:update_transmute_docs
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+68
−18
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
6 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
55f716f
Update docs with changes to Transmute
MetBenjaminWent 4434108
update wording
MetBenjaminWent db92a49
Merge branch 'main' into update_transmute_docs
MetBenjaminWent 1d7a62b
Update documentation/source/developer_guide/psyclone/psyclone_makefil…
MetBenjaminWent 19a9b3d
Apply suggestions from code review
MetBenjaminWent 0c3df00
Merge branch 'main' into update_transmute_docs
MetBenjaminWent File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Currently I'm not sure specify_exclude actually works for PSYCLONE_PASS_NO_SCRIPT.
I've implemented a very minimum viable product currently, whilst FAB/BAF or simular is being developed. I think I wanted to highlight this here somewhat that the intended use is with specify_include at this time.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks, I wasn't aware of that. Can I suggest modifying the wording to reflect this? Currently, the phrase "can be expanded to either" suggests to me that users can use
PSYCLONE_PASS_NO_SCRIPTwithspecify_exclude. Maybe this is clearer?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I agree that the wording would be a little clearer if it were changed to something like Oakley's suggestions for lines 128 and 130 specifically:
and
PSYCLONE_PASS_NO_SCRIPTare filtered out of thePSYCLONE_PHYSICS_FILESlist." .And then you could leave in your other lines to just reflect what is currently possible?
Maybe you could also change line 126 to "however this could be expanded to exclude in the future" ?