feat: support non-scalar valued field specifications #4034
Draft
feat: support non-scalar valued field specifications #4034
Conversation
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
This PR generalizes field specifications to support non-scalar values, notably scales (and so function names).
The following interface is proposed:
Instead of:
This PR also add a
regionNamesarray to make it easier to specify multiple regions.Considerations
Implementations considerations:
Design choice
I added a separate
scalesattribute (on top of the already existingscale) and afunctionNamesattribute (on top of the already existingfunctionName) to keep backward compatibility with every input files.The user must choose one way to describe its field specification,
either the scalar way:
or the non-scalar way:
and will not be able to use both at the same time.
Other possible implementations
There are different ways this PR could have been implemented, like:
scaleattribute in favor of a non-scalarscalesscale="42"andscale="{ 42 }"as the same type)FieldSpecification