Conversation
|
@speth ... I have absolutely no problem with this proposition (it makes sense). Would it make sense to also introduce PS: also marked this as relevant for the beta release ... PPS: For #1219 this is just 96d42a0 and bcf6ca7 (and potentially ab47b50) |
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #1223 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 65.44% 65.44% -0.01%
==========================================
Files 320 327 +7
Lines 46321 46321
Branches 19688 19688
==========================================
- Hits 30315 30314 -1
Misses 13475 13475
- Partials 2531 2532 +1
📣 Codecov can now indicate which changes are the most critical in Pull Requests. Learn more |
|
I like the changes in bcf6ca7. I actually think they make the |
ischoegl
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As far as I am aware, this is just code reorganization …
Changes proposed in this pull request
ReactionRate(e.g.TwoTempPlasmaRate) to a header file of its own, along with the implementation of the correspondingReactionDataclass. By making rate implementations self-contained, I think this makes it easier for users to see how to add new ones of their own.ReactionFactorydeclaration into an internal header file, so it can be removed after 2.6 without having to go through a deprecation cycle. (this class was introduced after Cantera 2.5, and so has never been a part of the released API)update_CandupdateRCmethods ofChebyshevRateandPlogRate, which are used directly only by the "legacy" rate methods.Checklist
scons build&scons test) and unit tests address code coverage