-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5
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.
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
Add elasticity and density #82
Conversation
Signed-off-by: [email protected] <[email protected]>
ab4e586
to
e9baae8
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good to me, thanks.
The only thing I am not sure about is which fields should be required. But I propose to go over all fields in the end and decide if they should be required or not.
@AsamDiegoSanchez @drsftx73 @KimuraDIVP could you do an additional formal review so we have the full support of all relevant CCB members? |
Signed-off-by: ClemensLinnhoff <[email protected]>
@ClemensLinnhoff have you had anything specific in mind on how to add the source field to properties that are currently a single key-value pair? I could imagine going for @DavidJRitter904's approach in #86 and call the higher level key "elasticity_data": {
"youngs_modulus": 70e9,
"poissons_ratio": 0.35,
"source": "internet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium"
},
"density_data": {
"density": 2699.0,
"source": "internet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium"
}, |
I think this is a very good solution! I originally thought about something like this: "density": {
"value": 2699.0,
"source": "internet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium"
}, But I actually like your approach better. |
Signed-off-by: [email protected] <[email protected]>
03426e0
to
3613595
Compare
Describe your changes
As discussed in the meeting on 04.09.2024:
Issue ticket number and link
Closes #58, closes #60
Checklist before requesting a review