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

Fixes for XML parsing (don't merge without inspection) #224

Open
wants to merge 38 commits into
base: development
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

m8pple
Copy link
Contributor

@m8pple m8pple commented May 27, 2021

Note : This is not a straight pull request; it's an invitation to cherry pick, rebase, copy whatever.
It can be closed whenever you like.

This branch contains fixes for #220 , #221 , and #222 , and means that all v4 XML parsing
checks in #208 pass.

While it is merged with 1.0.0-alpha (I think b5615c3), it includes
some possible repeated changes/fixes in it's history, so you probably don't want to merge it without
looking more carefully at all the changes.

@mvousden mvousden self-requested a review May 27, 2021 12:05
@mvousden mvousden requested a review from heliosfa May 27, 2021 12:05
@mvousden
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks for taking the time to identify the problems in the issues, and for proposing fixes.

Just to make you aware that I have seen your PR and the issues, and I'll get to them in due time!

@heliosfa
Copy link
Contributor

Looking through the commits, these can be ignored:

These have already been fixed:

These are the ones of interest are:

Extracted from dt10_development to make it easier to merge back into
1.0.0-alpha to check on parsing progress.
This is related to #235.
Main changes are:
- Add CommonBase::HaveIdleWork
- Modify CommonBase::MPISpinner to check
   whether there is idle work, and if not back off down
   to spinning at 10hz.
- Override HaveIdlework in various CommonBase
   derivatives to indicate if they have idle work.
@heliosfa heliosfa changed the base branch from 1.0.0-alpha to development June 16, 2021 15:22
@mvousden
Copy link
Contributor

Is this still needed in light of #264?

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