feat: external forcings converter #647
Conversation
* basic program structure * processing of a single [Meteo] block as first example code * testcase c081 with multiple combined wind files.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@priscavdsluis / @tim-vd-aardweg : what do you guys think about this extra "legacy.py" inside the MDU directory?
As long as we don't have versioned support for several old/newer formats of some of our filetypes, this was the solution I came up with.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@arthurvd / @priscavdsluis
I am not entirely sure to be honest. My first question is: Do we want tools in HYDROLIB-core, or do we create a separate package for tools that use HYDROLIB-core?
But let's assume we do want to add tools to the HYDROLIB-core package. I think my next question is: Should we implement this 'legacy' model into hydrolib, or should it be defined in the tool that uses it? Also, the change you request touches on a broader topic that should be discussed: How do we handle old/deprecated files/sections/keywords. Your requested change is due to the fact that we cannot handle older/unexpected file formats. And your change fixes things for your specific use case.
Having said all that, my thoughts are as follows:
- We will need to generically support older/unexpected formats. That way, we don't need your specific legacy model.
- Since that probably won't happen in the short term, we need a different solution for your use case. My preference would be to add the LegacyModel to the specific tool, so we do not pollute the main HYDROLIB-core package with quick fixes for specific tools.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hi @arthurvd / @tim-vd-aardweg / @priscavdsluis , I know you didn't ask my opinion but I still want to ask some questions regarding this.
Previously I remember a presentation was given with a picture showing hydrolib-core and hydrolib.
And how it should be used by tools.
See https://www.deltares.nl/expertise/projecten/hydrolib-gezamenlijke-automatisering-op-watersysteemmodellen
Should the converter not be a tool build on top of hydrolib-core?
Especially if the support for the old file format is dropped and no longer backwards compatible supported by the kernels.
Should hydrolib-core still support the old format, or only the new format from version x?
…ing a meteo block.
…ne caused the converter to crash
…ties than only Meteo See ConverterFactory and BaseConverter subclasses ext_old_to_new is now a subdirectory, instead of a single script, to keep things organized. BREAKING CHANGE: in hydrolib.core: renamed ExtOldFileType.Poyfile to ExtOldFileType.InsidePolygon
|
|
@arthurvd I'm trying to run the converter script through the command line but it's failing with the error message below. |
Makes serialized model files lean by only serializing the field values that have been explicitly set. Only implemented for IniModel (and IniBasedModel).
On the longer term, can we get rid of `LegacyFMModel` (which only exists to support `[Model]` in MDU files), and have this backwards compatibility implemented in a less ad-hoc way?
Misc cleanup + new cmdline args: * --postfix / -p : Append POSTFIX to the output filenames (before the extension). * --[no]backup : Create a backup of each file that will be overwritten.
|
Closes #621