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

Tag consistency for NcProcessModels #805

Open
ngr-francesco opened this issue Oct 30, 2023 · 2 comments
Open

Tag consistency for NcProcessModels #805

ngr-francesco opened this issue Oct 30, 2023 · 2 comments
Labels
1-feature New feature request

Comments

@ngr-francesco
Copy link

User story

I am working on the Brian2Lava project as part of the INRC. In order for our pipeline to work as intended it would be optimal if the @tag for all NcProcessModels was consistent. Instead, in some cases the tag is 'ucoded' (in the case of LIF) while in some others it is 'ucode' (in the case of Dense).
Having a consistent tag would make our life easier since we wouldn't have to rely on:

  • class names, since in principle users can define their own custom classes
  • case by case parsing of the tag for every single type of Process we are trying to support.
@ngr-francesco ngr-francesco added the 1-feature New feature request label Oct 30, 2023
@github-actions github-actions bot added the 0-needs-review For all new issues label Oct 30, 2023
@PhilippPlank PhilippPlank removed the 0-needs-review For all new issues label Nov 14, 2023
@PhilippPlank
Copy link
Contributor

Thank you for raising this issue. This house keeping is of course necessary, but probably not of immediate priority from our side. If you would like to change it, feel free to submit a PR :)

@jlubo
Copy link
Contributor

jlubo commented May 14, 2024

Hi, as a simple fix for this, it should suffice to add the "ucoded" tag to all process models in "lava/proc/dense/ncmodels.py".

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

No branches or pull requests

3 participants