search

idaholab / moose

Multiphysics Object Oriented Simulation Environment
https://www.mooseframework.org
GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1
1.67k stars 1.03k forks source link

Rename FaceFaceConstraint #10769

Closed friedmud closed 1 month ago

friedmud commented 6 years ago

Rationale

FaceFaceConstraint is really a MortarConstraint so let's rename it.

Description

Name sounds more general than it is. We want to use the more general name for another object

Impact

Clearer naming

permcody commented 6 years ago

You've opened up several tickets with really terse wording. Let's try to flesh these out a bit more, this would likely not stand up under an audit. The official requirements for these sections comes from NQA-1, but we've distilled it a bit in our PLN-4005 document in EDMS if you care to investigate what we are trying to do here.

friedmud commented 6 years ago

@permcody I added more words - I don't really know what to say. I just wanted to rename an object, I wasn't trying to be provocative here... just needed a simple ticket for renaming something. Not everything needs a large amount of prose....

permcody commented 6 years ago

Right, I'm just pointing out that making all issues into requirements is not the right idea. Some things are just simple actions that don't require a lot thought, bookingkeeping, prose, etc. They are useful to track work, but not necessarily to generate requirements. As soon as you say, well only a subset of the issues are requirements, then an auditor want to know, which subset...

friedmud commented 6 years ago

Hah - well - I still think each issue is a requirement... but not all requirements are "large" requirements. I "require" that this file changed names is still a requirement!

And as for subsetting - it could be easily done with a label.

But anyway: that ship has sailed... let's see how we do with our currently agreed upon system! :-)

On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 11:37 AM Cody Permann notifications@github.com wrote:

Right, I'm just pointing out that making all issues into requirements is not the right idea. Some things are just simple actions that don't require a lot thought, bookingkeeping, prose, etc. They are useful to track work, but not necessarily to generate requirements. As soon as you say, well only a subset of the issues are requirements, then an auditor want to know, which subset...

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread.

Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/idaholab/moose/issues/10769#issuecomment-368980504, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AA1JMX2n-6sUYv4Yyiz9AuX40_dq0NUDks5tZEsIgaJpZM4SD_U9 .

GiudGiud commented 1 month ago

Closing as addressed by https://github.com/idaholab/moose/pull/10771