You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Currently in the UserConfig interface (used by the build package), the user must define the modelSpec which is typically provided by the plugin-config package. The plugin-config package reads csv config files and generates an object that is used to build the spec.json file used by the compiler. Right now there is no way to define additional spec.json fields like directData that are necessary if a model uses GET DIRECT ... functions with the indirect tag (?data) syntax.
We should add a field to ConfigProcessorOptions that allows for setting these additional fields:
/** * Additional options included with the SDE `spec.json` file. * @hidden This is not part of the public API because we are aiming to merge * the `spec.json` file format with the `sde.config.js` format. This is exposed * temporarily to allow for configuring additional settings like `directData` * for which we don't currently have a way to configure via config files. */// eslint-disable-next-line @typescript-eslint/no-explicit-any
spec?: {[key: string]: any}
I'm hiding it from the public API for now because I want to rename (and generally redo) spec.json file handling, see #327. Hopefully once we reconsider the config file arrangement, we won't need this mostly untyped field.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Currently in the
UserConfig
interface (used by the build package), the user must define themodelSpec
which is typically provided by the plugin-config package. The plugin-config package reads csv config files and generates an object that is used to build thespec.json
file used by the compiler. Right now there is no way to define additional spec.json fields likedirectData
that are necessary if a model usesGET DIRECT ...
functions with the indirect tag (?data
) syntax.We should add a field to
ConfigProcessorOptions
that allows for setting these additional fields:I'm hiding it from the public API for now because I want to rename (and generally redo)
spec.json
file handling, see #327. Hopefully once we reconsider the config file arrangement, we won't need this mostly untyped field.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: