updated to latest jutul and jutul darcy version, revise pyplot to pyt… #35
Conversation
| @@ -1,31 +0,0 @@ | |||
| name = "JutulDarcyRules" | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Cannot delete this file it's mandatory for any Julia package
| @@ -1,11 +1,11 @@ | |||
| ## A simple 2D example for fluid-flow simulation | |||
|
|
|||
| using DrWatson | |||
| @quickactivate "JutulDarcyRules-example" | |||
| @quickactivate "JutulDarcyRules" | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Any reason all these example use DrWatson/quickactivate instead of only using JutulDarcyRules as a package?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd guess because this lets a user run the files without doing any setup (assuming they have DrWatson installed). So they can run the examples without having to install JutulDarcyRules.
Do you think we should get rid of it? It isn't a standard way to give package examples, and it may be annoying for people who don't want to install DrWatson. But it does benefit people who rely on DrWatson, and those people probably need more support than the kind of advanced users who don't want to install DrWatson.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I mean both sides have their advantages. DrWatson makes things very stable in terms of reproducibility, and it also makes it a constraint on the user as for examples, the Project.toml contains a lot of dependencies that are not actually needed for the project but only for the examples.
Fundamentally, IMO, this package is a tool, not an application, so it should be as minimal as possible to be included in people's workflow easily. That means trimming the dependencies to a minimum and, if needed, make a separate repo with a bunch of examples and applications using DrWatson. But i don't think the package itself should be using DrWatson.
update to latest jutul and jutul darcy version, change pyplot to pythonplot