Feature/scaling action #38
Conversation
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #38 +/- ##
===========================================
- Coverage 23.19% 23.12% -0.08%
===========================================
Files 284 290 +6
Lines 30216 30312 +96
Branches 1104 1118 +14
===========================================
Hits 7009 7009
- Misses 23207 23303 +96 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
dsarmany
force-pushed
the
feature/scaling-action
branch
from
adbfc0f to
03cda38
Compare
| return; | ||
| } | ||
| // Apply the scaling factor using std::transform | ||
| std::transform(data, data + size, data, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In this case, std::for_each is sufficient. It is simpler and thus preferable, I'd say.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think I disagree in this case, I'm sorry. I think transform makes it clearer as to the context of the underlying action (which in fact is a transformation of data in place). I agree it could be done with for_each but I don't think it would be simpler. Nevertheless I'm also not very partial on this line of code. So if you really prefer for_each I can change the line to
std::for_each(data, data + size, [scaleFactor](Precision& value) { value = static_cast<Precision>(value * scaleFactor); });
|
|
||
| ScaleScaling::ScaleScaling(const config::ComponentConfiguration& compConf) : hasScaling_(false), scaleFactor_{} { | ||
|
|
||
| const auto mappings = compConf.parsedConfig().has("mapping-definition") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There seems to be some duplication of logic here as well. Can we remove the one in Scale.cc?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I was weighing that option: I can either create individual plans for fields where scaling is needed or as I currently have add it to plans where only a subset of fields actually need scaling specified by case in the plan. BUT then I wanted to have a check to leave this action as early as possible. I can move the logic in a util function and call it, but this would still be in all three cases. Or I can remove the whole logic of checking as soon as possible. Or I can retrieve the param only in scale.cc and then pass it to the apply function (But this I didn't prefer since I wanted to have the Mapping and scaling as enclosed as possbile sind I pass the metadata anyway and hence have the information anyway)
src/multio/action/scale/Mapping.cc
Outdated
|
|
||
| void ScaleMapping::applyMapping(message::Metadata& md) const { | ||
| if (hasMapping_) { | ||
| std::string cparam{"xxx"}; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Same comments here about the logic and duplication (triplication). I'm a bit confused. I think we need this in two places but not in three?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
see explanation above. Happy to change but would like to discuss what makes the most sense
dsarmany
force-pushed
the
feature/scaling-action
branch
from
2427724 to
d61694d
Compare
Adding scaling action for Climate DT Phase 2 portfolio.