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 xml * 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 snowpack_base.xml. 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. Regards
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 down. 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.