Add tree view for 'case view' #7107
Conversation
frode-aarstad
force-pushed
the
storage-tree-view
branch
4 times, most recently
from
6afe3b0 to
ef53920
Compare
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #7107 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 84.87% 85.13% +0.26%
==========================================
Files 384 386 +2
Lines 22805 22932 +127
Branches 945 940 -5
==========================================
+ Hits 19355 19524 +169
+ Misses 3332 3294 -38
+ Partials 118 114 -4 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
frode-aarstad
force-pushed
the
storage-tree-view
branch
2 times, most recently
from
cbb27b6 to
db0a869
Compare
|
This is looking good 👍 When creating a new experiment in the "Manage cases" section by hitting the plus-button, users are prompted to input an "ensemble name".
Is it difficult to allow users to input an experiment name as well? |
frode-aarstad
force-pushed
the
storage-tree-view
branch
3 times, most recently
from
608d4f5 to
c349413
Compare
|
Have added a "Create new experiment" dialog. Simple for now
|
frode-aarstad
force-pushed
the
storage-tree-view
branch
from
c349413 to
177b371
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this gives a nice and useful overview of the experiments and ensembles in storage.
Good stuff 👍
@oyvindeide should probably have a look as well.
frode-aarstad
force-pushed
the
storage-tree-view
branch
from
177b371 to
f76ac43
Compare
| ) | ||
|
|
||
| (path / "index.json").write_text(_Index(id=uuid, name=name).model_dump_json()) | ||
| with open(path / cls._simulation_arguments_file, "w", encoding="utf-8") as f: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Will this require migration?
| dialog = wait_for_child(gui, qtbot, ValidatedDialog) | ||
| dialog.param_name.setText(case_name) | ||
| qtbot.mouseClick(dialog.ok_button, Qt.LeftButton) | ||
| # dialog = wait_for_child(gui, qtbot, CreateExperimentDialog, options=Qt.FindChildOption.FindChildrenRecursively) |
| @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@ class SimulationArguments: | |||
| class SingleTestRunArguments(SimulationArguments): | |||
| current_case: str | |||
| target_case: Optional[str] = None | |||
| analysis_module: str = "Single test" | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
analysis_module is a bit overloaded, so suggest we rename this ensemble_type instead
| @@ -42,6 +44,7 @@ def __post_init__(self) -> None: | |||
| class EvaluateEnsembleRunArguments(SimulationArguments): | |||
| active_realizations: List[bool] | |||
| current_case: str | |||
| analysis_module: str = "Evaluate ensemble" | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We are just depending on this being in simulation arguments, right? So if we want to refactor this we just need to keep this? The reason I am asking is because we might want to remove current_case for example, and would like that to be easy to do.
Issue
Resolves #6722
Approach
Short description of the approach
(Screenshot of new behavior in GUI if applicable)
When applicable