QTY001 (IVS-87) #404
QTY001 (IVS-87) #404
Conversation
1. Rename feature file to match the ticket in the backlog. 2. Add pass and fail unit test files (IVS-87)
(IVS-87)
|
I don't think this is the intention behind the docs. Rather, I think the intention of the docs there is to establish the equivalent of our PSE001 rule. I.e:
For equivalence between PSE001 and QTO001 it would be nice establish exactly the same structure. Although I'm not sure whether we can enforce that the |
|
Point taken - but the rule as-is captures and enforces a documented agreement, correct? So we can rename this to QTY010 or something that doesn't conflict with existing PSE numbers, then come back to build QTY001 similarly to PSE001 as you have suggested. |
Why not? |
Not that I personally would be against it, just because I don't recall it's ever written down like that and people might complain.
No I don't think so, because the BaseQuantities MoM should only be set under the condition that the name matches any of the predefined names in the spec. (bottom half of https://ifc43-docs.standards.buildingsmart.org/IFC/RELEASE/IFC4x3/HTML/annex-b3.html) |
QTY001 will be very similar to PSE001. This commit is the first step to add flexibility to the property set step implementations so that they can handle validation of the `QTY` functional part also. (IVS-87)
The step implementation previously included all matching step permutations in the decorator but also repeated fragments with control flow statements in the body of the function. This revised functions are much smaller and each match a single step statement. There are a few function calls repeated with each implementation, but these are cached with `functools` to minimize any performance ramifications. (IVS-87)
|
Per discussion today, the Also as discussed, |
Pretty simple rule, but adds more substance to the
QTYfunctional part.