Feature/322 simIncludeGravBody rewrite #501
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
juan-g-bonilla
force-pushed
the
feature/322-simIncludeGravBody-rewrite
branch
from
dccd430
to
96334b8
Compare
schaubh
requested changes
Nov 21, 2023
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for the branch. I would leave the old method as well for now as it allows a spacecraft to be connected to a different set of gravity bodies. i.e., we can have a simulation where sc1 is subject to moon and earth, and sc2 is only subject to the moon. I don't think we can readily do this with your refactor/
juan-g-bonilla
force-pushed
the
feature/322-simIncludeGravBody-rewrite
branch
from
96334b8
to
f364b84
Compare
schaubh
approved these changes
Nov 25, 2023
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description
The syntax suggested in #332 is supported. Old syntax is still supported.
Verification
All scenarios were updated to use the new syntax. Tests were not. Both scenarios and tests are passing.
To deprecate or not to deprecate
Should we deprecate the old syntax somehow? There is no harm in the old syntax being used, both the old and new syntax end up doing the same things under the hood.
Documentation
None.
Future work
Update tests so that they use the newer syntax.