Skip to content
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

Patch #90 (pep8 issues, docstring consistency) #92

Merged
merged 12 commits into from
Jan 10, 2022

Conversation

yardasol
Copy link
Contributor

@yardasol yardasol commented Dec 17, 2021

Summary of changes

#90 had some pep8 issues and docstring inconsistencies that were not addressed before merging. This PR addresses those issues.

Types of changes

  • Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
  • Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)

Required for Merging

  • I have read the CONTRIBUTING document.
  • My code follows the code style of this project.
  • My change requires a change to the documentation.
  • I have updated the documentation accordingly.
  • I have added tests to cover my changes.
  • All new and existing tests passed.
    • CI tests pass
    • Local tests pass (including Serpent2 integration tests)

Associated Issues and PRs

Associated Developers

  • Dev: @

Checklist for Reviewers

Reviewers should use this link to get to the
Review Checklist before they begin their review.

@pep8speaks
Copy link
Contributor

pep8speaks commented Dec 17, 2021

Hello @yardasol! Thanks for updating this PR. We checked the lines you've touched for PEP 8 issues, and found:

There are currently no PEP 8 issues detected in this Pull Request. Cheers! 🍻

Comment last updated at 2022-01-10 19:04:11 UTC

@yardasol yardasol requested review from munkm and gwenchee December 17, 2021 19:23
@yardasol yardasol changed the title Patch #90 pep8 issues Patch #90 (pep8 issues, docstring consistency) Dec 17, 2021
@yardasol yardasol requested a review from LukeSeifert December 17, 2021 23:21
Copy link
Contributor

@LukeSeifert LukeSeifert left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I made a few minor comments, but overall I think it looks good.

Comment on lines +171 to +179
exec_path : str
Path to Serpent2 executable.
template_path : str
Path to user input file for Serpent2.
input_path : str
Name of input file for Serpent2 rerunning.
iter_matfile : str
Name of iterative, rewritable material file for Serpent2
rerunning. This file is modified during the simulation.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Consider adding the optional tag to these parameters

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't think these are optional. They form the backbone of inputs that saltproc needs to run. What's your rationale?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I was thinking the default values would typically work, but yeah I think you're right that these aren't really optional.

Comment on lines 328 to 334
Parameters
-----------
input_file: str
input_file : str
Serpent2 input file name and path.

Returns
--------
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

There is one extra "-" on the Parameters and the Returns sections

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Nice catch

@@ -186,25 +199,25 @@ def __init__(self,
active_cycles,
inactive_cycles)

def change_sim_par(self, data):
def change_sim_par(self, template_data):
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

template_data is a much better variable name, nice work

@yardasol yardasol requested a review from LukeSeifert January 10, 2022 19:29
Copy link
Contributor

@LukeSeifert LukeSeifert left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good!

@LukeSeifert LukeSeifert merged commit a7559b2 into arfc:master Jan 10, 2022
@yardasol yardasol deleted the patch-90 branch January 10, 2022 20:57
@yardasol yardasol restored the patch-90 branch January 10, 2022 20:57
@yardasol yardasol deleted the patch-90 branch March 9, 2022 19:01
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants