Skip to content
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

ProcessBuilder: Generic module to build processes within code #42

Closed
1 task done
phstratmann opened this issue Sep 27, 2022 · 3 comments
Closed
1 task done

ProcessBuilder: Generic module to build processes within code #42

phstratmann opened this issue Sep 27, 2022 · 3 comments

Comments

@phstratmann
Copy link
Contributor

Objective of issue: In the repo, Processes are produced on the fly in the SolverProcessBuilder.
That's a feature which should not be hidden in the optimization library, but should be a generic tool in Lava.
In addition, in builder.py, the decorators are currently replaced in this way:
setattr(solver_model, "implements_process", self.solver_process) # Get requirements of parent class super_res = solver_model.required_resources.copy() # Set new requirements not overwriting parent class requirements. setattr(solver_model, "required_resources", super_res + requirements) setattr(solver_model, "implements_protocol", protocol)

That will work with the current decorators; but future pushes to the decorators may break it.

Lava version:

  • 0.3.0 (feature release)
@GaboFGuerra
Copy link
Collaborator

@phstratmann should this rater be split in a lava issue and a lava-optimization issue?

@mathisrichter
Copy link
Contributor

This issue covers two points:

  1. A feature request for something that can generate Lava Processes on the fly. This should be filed in the lava-nc/lava repository.
  2. An idea to make the lava-optimization code more future-proof, which would be a feature request to be filed in lava-nc/lava-optimization.
    @phstratmann Could you please change the stories accordingly?

@phstratmann
Copy link
Contributor Author

Replaced by issues #169 and #580

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants