Open JasonGlazer opened 1 year ago
Options for compliance parameters:
For many of these the factor of being able to use IDF Editor (or eventually the epJSON Editor) or simply add and manipulate an IDF file using current workflows is important. For GUIs they would probably also prefer to simply generate an IDF or epJSON file directly that contains everything since the GUI would also now need new entry fields for users to populate.
Options 1 to 5 are all keeping the information together in a single IDF or epJSON file and would probably be easiest for the user or GUI developer.
Options 6 to 8 may be easier to program but more difficult for users and developers. If no creation of empty compliance parameter file is done, they are definitely the easiest approach.
For now I think I will use option 8 without the empty file creation. Options 2 and 4 can always create a JSON patch file as part of the preprocessor. Option 8 is the easiest option in the short term to implement.
Compliance parameters are those that cannot be determined by the simulation input or output and instead need to be provided by the modeler as they are interpreting the design. These parameters should be organized so they can be merged into the RMD file that is produced by the script.
They might make sense to have as a YAML file or in a file similar to an IDF file or epJSON file so that IDF Editor or epjson Editor can be used to produce them.
An alternative is to include additional "compliance" objects in the IDD schema so that they can be directly entered by the users in the same file. If this route is taken, an additional report of compliance parameters would need to be generated.