Calculate cross-check results based on latest tool versions

[t-sommer]

Currently the number of "passed" FMU imports is summed up over all versions of the tools / FMUs. This leads to an "advantage" for older tools (with more versions) and does not encourage importers to test against newly released versions / tools. For the users this makes the result tables (both tools page and cross-check) less meaningful.

In the discussion at the FMI Design Meeting in Roanne it turned out that this could be solved by introducing an additional column "latest_version" to tools.csv. The results could then be structured like this:

	Tool A v1.1		Tool B v2.0
	Model 1	Model 2	Model 1	Model 2
Tool A	passed	rejected	passed	failed
Tool C	passed	passed	passed	rejected

The advantage of this approach would be that it scales much better (less data and CPU time) and produces a table that fits on one page and gives a good overview of the current status of the interoperability of the tools.

[andreas-junghanns]

Many customers are stuck with old versions of tools for all kinds of reasons. Putting such a singular focus on the newest version looks like we start a race and punish those that try to stay stable.
It also looks like it only looks at versions of exporting tools - intentionally?

[t-sommer]

The results would still be summed up over all versions of the importing tool. The intention is to give the users a clear picture where the numbers come from.

In the current tables Tool B gets a "5" for five imported FMUs of Tools A which could be the same model from 5 different versions of Tool A or imported by 5 five different versions of tool B.

This would IMHO even be a big improvement if we sum up over all versions because it is unlikely that newer versions can't simulate models that worked in older versions.

[chrbertsch]

For me the requirement for displaying the results are the following:

• in a top-level view it should be simple (e.g. not displaying all tool versions separately)
• users expect up-to-date results (from up-to-date versions). Tool vendors who provide such up-to-date information should be rewarded. On the other hand, for exported FMUs, it will take some time until the importers have reported new XC results. So I would propose to use only the two latest versions of tools both for exporters and importers to calculate the sum of successful FMUs of a tool combination
• it should be possible (in a second view)to to access more detailed information like results for older tool versions. Here users could look how good FMI is supported in a specific (older) tool version.
  (e.g. displayed in a table where each tool version is treated like a separate tool)
• in an even more detailed (third) view it should be possible to inspect XC results for individual FMUs.
  This will be especially important once we will have reference FMUs as part of the XC.

In the above sketch I do not understand what "Model 1", "Model 2" means.

[t-sommer]

"Model 1" and "Model 2" are placeholders for the models exported by the tool.

[andreas-junghanns]

Christian: I am happy with what we have and Torsten spent a lot of his time to get it to where we have it now. You requirements sound quite detailed: maybe you can implement them as a proposal?

[t-sommer]

@andreas-junghanns, @chrbertsch would you be okay if we add the models as columns? It would be possible w/o changes to files / tools.csv and would give a more detailed image. The total number of models (currently ~50) is quite stable and would fit on one page.

[andreas-junghanns]

Could we have a switch to enable and disable the model level?
From my experience, the number of models will increase over time and we need a switch of level of detail anyway. Filtering will be needed in the platform tests at some point for sure - this could be a first step.

[t-sommer]

The number of different models per platform is actually quite stable because vendors tend to export the same models for each version (which is good). Even with 50 models for the "worst case" (2.0/cs/win64) we would have some space to grow.

[andreas-junghanns]

aha - ok then let's leave more complicated filtering for later

[t-sommer]

If we use a smart layout the table will look the same from 1m distance

[t-sommer]

...but one could easily detect the tools that import only the simple models.

[APillekeit]

Based on the past discussion about how to show to the user an information about version compatibility of tools I would like to make the following proposal:

You start from the following currently available table (e.g. in https://fmi-standard.org/cross-check/fmi2-me-win32/):

importing tool	Tool 1	Tool 2	Tool 3
Tool 1	number of tests 1->1	number of tests 1->2	number of tests 1->3
Tool 2	number of tests 2->1	number of tests 2->2	number of tests 2->3
Tool 3	number of tests 3->1	number of tests 3->2	number of tests 3->3

If a user clicks on the information about the number of tests (e.g. number of tests 1->2) the following table is displayed

importing tool	Tool 2 version a	Tool 2 version b	Tool 2 version c
Tool 1 version 2017	number of tests 2017->a	number of tests 2017->b	number of tests 2017->c
Tool 1 version 2018	number of tests 2018->a	number of tests 2018->b	number of tests 2018->c
Tool 1 version 2019	number of tests 2019->a	number of tests 2019->b	number of tests 2019->c

The user can go back to the former table view via the browser's "go back" features (i.e. buttons).