Before actually changing the FMI-CROSS-CHECK-RULES.md and creating a pull request I just wanted to ask your opinion about a few clarifications to the document:
Section 9.1.3:
- "All FMUs submitted to the repository must run without license checks..."
Should FMUs that fail to run (due to license restrictions) be removed or marked as "notCompliantWithLatestRules"?
Generally, should we add a sentence about what happens with FMUs that have been added during a previous version of the cross-check rules and only because of a change to the regulations are no longer complying? Shall these be kept for historical reasons, but excluded from the summary page generation?
Section 9.1.4:
"If the FMU cannot be provided (e.g. because it contains critical intellectual property), submit a file {Model_Name}.nofmu. The README file shall contain information about how to get access to that FMU directly from the exporting tool vendor."
-> could this be applied also for license-restricted FMUs? Asking the tool vendor for a license is similar to asking for a license-free "secret" FMU.
"Reference solution as computed by the exporting tool."
-> Extend to:
"Reference solution as computed by the exporting tool. Should be obtained by calculation with the exported FMU itself."
"The variables in this file must match the input variables defined in the modelDescription.xml."
-> Extend to:
"The variables in this file must match the input variables and their types defined in the modelDescription.xml."
(Background: prevent situations where a real variable from the csv with value "12.3" is fed into a boolean input variable.)
Just a few ideas from my side.
-Andreas
Before actually changing the FMI-CROSS-CHECK-RULES.md and creating a pull request I just wanted to ask your opinion about a few clarifications to the document:
Section 9.1.3:
Should FMUs that fail to run (due to license restrictions) be removed or marked as "notCompliantWithLatestRules"?
Generally, should we add a sentence about what happens with FMUs that have been added during a previous version of the cross-check rules and only because of a change to the regulations are no longer complying? Shall these be kept for historical reasons, but excluded from the summary page generation?
Section 9.1.4:
"If the FMU cannot be provided (e.g. because it contains critical intellectual property), submit a file {Model_Name}.nofmu. The README file shall contain information about how to get access to that FMU directly from the exporting tool vendor."
-> could this be applied also for license-restricted FMUs? Asking the tool vendor for a license is similar to asking for a license-free "secret" FMU.
"Reference solution as computed by the exporting tool."
-> Extend to:
"Reference solution as computed by the exporting tool. Should be obtained by calculation with the exported FMU itself."
"The variables in this file must match the input variables defined in the modelDescription.xml."
-> Extend to:
"The variables in this file must match the input variables and their types defined in the modelDescription.xml."
(Background: prevent situations where a real variable from the csv with value "12.3" is fed into a boolean input variable.)
Just a few ideas from my side.
-Andreas