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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

refactor/316/better-design #317

Open
jharwell opened this issue Sep 27, 2024 · 0 comments
Open

refactor/316/better-design #317

jharwell opened this issue Sep 27, 2024 · 0 comments
Labels
Type: Refactor

Comments

@jharwell
Copy link
Owner

Now that I have some distance from initial implementation, and a better handle
on how to treat python files, I should go through and at a minimum:

  • Move all classes with only a call function to just be a free function.

  • Update docs with all changes
@jharwell jharwell changed the title refactor/316/better-architecture refactor/316/better-design Sep 27, 2024
jharwell added a commit that referenced this issue Sep 30, 2024
@jharwell
refactor(#317): Better design
f611c83 
- Better use of modules instead of classes in stage 4.
jharwell added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 1, 2024
@jharwell
refactor(#317): Better design
3e74dcc 
- Better use of modules instead of classes in stage 4.
jharwell added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 1, 2024
@jharwell
refactor(#317): Better design
2acadc0 
- Better use of modules instead of classes in stage 4.
jharwell added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 4, 2024
@jharwell
refactor(#317): Better design
ba830db 
- Start moving access of "roots" from dictionary to attribute--much better
  static checking, and more stable.
jharwell added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 4, 2024
@jharwell
refactor(#317): Better design
326bc53 
- Continue moving things over to the new PathSet() paradigm

- I MAY want to have the batch criteria own its own pathset; not sure if that's
  a good idea or not. Will revisit.
jharwell added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 4, 2024
@jharwell
refactor(#317): Better design
99e2550 
- Continue moving things over to the new PathSet() paradigm

- I MAY want to have the batch criteria own its own pathset; not sure if that's
  a good idea or not. Will revisit.

- Removed some of the usage of a custom ep_names when generating graph
  ticks/labels; I THINK this is a remnant which I no longer need. I may find
  otherwise, once I try to get titerra to work again...
jharwell added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 17, 2024
@jharwell
refactor(#317): Better design
8160c91 
- Continue moving things over to the new PathSet() paradigm

- I MAY want to have the batch criteria own its own pathset; not sure if that's
  a good idea or not. Will revisit.
jharwell added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 17, 2024
@jharwell
refactor(#317): Better design
87e5dbb 
- Continue moving things over to the new PathSet() paradigm

- I MAY want to have the batch criteria own its own pathset; not sure if that's
  a good idea or not. Will revisit.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
Type: Refactor
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
1 participant
@jharwell