Issue 824: Simulations handling issues

Reported by Mathias Bavay, Mar 7, 2020

I've started playing with Simulations. I've also noticed a few 
problems (the include absolute paths has already been committed):
   * there are redundancies between the workflow and the simulation 
   * if we include an xml file that links to a workflow, we end up 
with two workflows and possibly conflicting ids. This is not ideal 
(since it is not so user friendly to have to care about it). I have 
no clue what should be done...
   * when we include an xml, we must provide a proper path to it. It 
would be nice to give the name (like "snowpack.xml") and 
let the system "find" it

Comment 1 by Michael Reisecker, Mar 14, 2020

Concerning this issue let me just note that there isn't any kind of 
"Simulations" object - this feature is a by-product; the 
only code targeting Simulations is to display them in a different 
listing. Changes will mean to develop the feature, rather than 
refactoring existing code.

As such, any redundant information in Simulations is up to the XML 
designer to avoid (because the program doesn't do anything special 
with it).
If you really want to exclude "SNOWPACK" for a SNOWPACK 
simulation, currently you would need to have something like 
snowpack.xml which will include snowpack_base.xml and 
snowpack_workflow.xml, and the simulation would only include 

I completely agree that Simulations, the way they are now, are a 
feature for users who want to get into it. But since I don't suppose 
that many simulations will be sent around in INIshell format, surely 
for setting up a simulation having to deal with XML is the first and 
biggest tripping stone for new users?

A minimal example can rather easily be copy/pasted and followed from 
the help, but maybe if this feature gains importance a small 
assistant would be the way to keep our structure while making it 
easier on the user.

IDs: Starting with revision 16d0939 first the current tab is 
searched for the ID, only then all others. Again, as long as we ask 
users to write XML, my opinion is that they should be able to choose 
unique IDs (or at least look at the log). Surely within SLF software 
it couldn't hurt to choose longer ones / use a prefix.

Happy for thoughts on how to make Simulations more intuitive.


Comment 2 by Michael Reisecker, Mar 14, 2020

Also Workflow related: I'm not too happy with the separate workflow 
status label, this was just to get something quickly. If the 
workflow tab is too long, the user will only see it by scrolling 

First I was thinking to rotate the main one in some way, but then if 
users leave the computer after starting a run they will miss it.
So maybe just a second label in the main status bar (noting the tab 
it came from), I'm not sure.

Created: 1 year 10 months ago by Mathias Bavay

Updated: 1 year 10 months ago

Status: New

Followed by: 1 person