Skip to content

Conversation

@pjb236
Copy link
Contributor

@pjb236 pjb236 commented Sep 19, 2025

Added a dakota batch coupler and some new model methods it needs. Current implementation assumes Flux is being used, this might have to change.

@pjb236 pjb236 requested a review from eparish1 September 19, 2025 14:59
@pjb236 pjb236 self-assigned this Sep 19, 2025
@eparish1
Copy link
Contributor

@pjb236 I think we should move this to the sparc-tools repository due to the implicit assumption on flux as well as the requirement for dakota python interface. In particular, the latter will fail all the tests unless we add its install as part of the pyproject, and I don't believe this is possible currently. Thoughts?

@pjb236
Copy link
Contributor Author

pjb236 commented Sep 19, 2025

@pjb236 I think we should move this to the sparc-tools repository due to the implicit assumption on flux as well as the requirement for dakota python interface. In particular, the latter will fail all the tests unless we add its install as part of the pyproject, and I don't believe this is possible currently. Thoughts?

Yeah, I think this makes sense. Are you thinking of moving all changes or just dakota_batch_coupler.py?

@pjb236
Copy link
Contributor Author

pjb236 commented Sep 24, 2025

@eparish1 I was able to move the batch coupler, but I've kept the changes to the model interface here for now. I would have to duplicate definitions of these functions multiple places in the sparc model interfaces, which I could do, but is not the most elegant way to implement it.

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants