Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Handle target properties in federations #1560

Closed
lhstrh opened this issue Jan 19, 2023 · 4 comments
Closed

Handle target properties in federations #1560

lhstrh opened this issue Jan 19, 2023 · 4 comments

Comments

@lhstrh
Copy link
Member

lhstrh commented Jan 19, 2023

If a federated reactor is declared in a file with target properties, what does this mean for federates? My inclination is to have target properties be scoped by the file (this is also how we plan to have multi-target interactions), but this may soon change once we have a package manager and an external declaration of target properties in a project file. Tagging @revol-xut, @cmnrd, @erlingrj, and @arengarajan99.

@cmnrd
Copy link
Collaborator

cmnrd commented Jan 25, 2023

I think build properties should be scoped by the project/package with potential refinements for specific sources, which is indeed what we are working on with lingo.

@lhstrh
Copy link
Member Author

lhstrh commented Nov 6, 2023

Just to describe what we do now: we create a configuration based on the target properties found in the main resource, overridden by whatever comes in over the command-line (which, it it is supplied as JSON, could come from lingo), and then overridden by whatever target properties might exist in the file in which the class of the federate is located (if this is not the same file as the main resource).

@lhstrh lhstrh closed this as completed Nov 6, 2023
@cmnrd
Copy link
Collaborator

cmnrd commented Nov 6, 2023

Shouldn't the command line arguments take precedence over all federates? It seems weird to let cli arguments override properties in the main file, but not for imported files. This can be pretty hard to reason about.

@lhstrh
Copy link
Member Author

lhstrh commented Nov 6, 2023

You are right. Will fix this in #1817.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants