search

siesta-project / aiida_siesta_plugin

Source code for the AiiDA-Siesta package (plugin and workflows). See wiki
Other
6 stars 11 forks source link

Fix requirement of exposed ports. #64

Closed bosonie closed 4 years ago

bosonie commented 4 years ago

The feature to impose the exposed input ports to be "not-required" was due to the fact that users can now iterate over this ports name, defining them in the iterate_over dictionary. However, when the iterate_over port is not accepted (new feature implemented recently), it has no sense to impose that the exposed inputs are not-required. This commit fixes the problem. @pfebrer96 Do you agree??

pfebrer commented 4 years ago

Yes, I didn't realise this.

There's only one situation where assuming this could go wrong: if you expose an iteration_input that makes an input port of _process_class not needed. At the moment it seems like it would be a rare and easily spottable situation, so it could be solved "manually". Even if that's not the case, a future commit could solve the problem easily. So I'd say there's no problem!

bosonie commented 4 years ago

In this case the iteration_input method should take care of making the correct input port not needed. Not sure how. I guess the easiest solution would be to implement that iteration_input accepts a list of keywords that needs to be transformed into "not_required"

pfebrer commented 4 years ago

Yes, but I don't think it's necessary at least for the time being. I would guess it's difficult to find a situation where creating an iteration_input makes an input port optional. It think it would be more common that it makes the input port useless, in which case you can exclude it.