relax filename size restriction for hotfiles#15
Merged
Conversation
Contributor
|
Thanks @rsoutelino |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The current limit for the
fnameoption in the HOTSINGLE and HOTMULTIPLE subcomponents is 36 characters, which can be a bit restrictive for long hierarchical pathnames in filesystems, as in the example below.I make a suggestion here to increase that limit to 80, assuming there are no other drawbacks. I was initially working around that by copying/renaming the hotfile, but it may be handy to have the actual full path of the file in the declarative YAML configuration as a reference for programatically checking for hotfile existence, in workflows where you want to branch out to automatic spinup triggers based on hotfile absence.
No particular reason for suggesting
max_length=80as the new limit, just arbitrarily used Python pep8 as a reference. I'm also not sure if there are any other drawbacks to increasing this limit or perhaps not having a limit at all, so just putting this forward as a possible change.I've tested it locally with SWAN 41.45, and it looks like the model accepts such long pathnames INPUT file in the
Boundary and Initial conditionssection (as below). The model ran without errors with that INPUT file.Cheers