[staging] ♻️ Improve specification of clp_constraints #1537
Labels
Status: Lack of interest
Issue went stale | cold | lack of (user) interest
Type: Refactor
Refactoring code
Milestone
One of the current pain points is related to specifying clp_constraints (type zero) where you are somewhat left 'guessing' the internals to know what target to write.
For instance, at the end of the model specification, 200 lines down from where the complex/element is fist specified you may find a clp_constraint tht looks like this:
Here coherent_artifact_1_artifact is not explicitly defined anywhere, you just need to 'know' it exists, because you have a coherent artifact, with at least order 1, named artifact. 🙈 Even worse are the mixin of pfid and damped-oscillation related oscillation components. Needing to name the oscillation of doas dosc1, docs2, etc
SO that in zero constraints you can figure out that
is related to PFID, whereas
is a zero constraint related to doas.
I think we could take advantage of the fact that the new library/elements definition could allow for easier close to the source definitions.
Proposed refactoring
Benefits
Possible cons
Additional context
It should be investigated if the other constraints (equality, equal area) could benefit from a similar refactor.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: