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

chore(revit): adds units to object params #280

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Sep 27, 2024

Conversation

clairekuang
Copy link
Member

@clairekuang clairekuang commented Sep 25, 2024

Pulls the units from the parameter definition to add to object parameters. If no units are present, there will be no unit field on the object param.

https://latest.speckle.systems/projects/3f895e614f/models/7367fe3688@03e237b76d
image

Copy link

linear bot commented Sep 25, 2024

Copy link

codecov bot commented Sep 25, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 0% with 11 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 8.41%. Comparing base (6115620) to head (79b907f).
Report is 4 commits behind head on dev.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
...ToSpeckle/Parameters/ParameterDefinitionHandler.cs 0.00% 7 Missing ⚠️
...tShared/ToSpeckle/Parameters/ParameterExtractor.cs 0.00% 4 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff            @@
##             dev    #280      +/-   ##
========================================
- Coverage   8.43%   8.41%   -0.02%     
========================================
  Files        231     231              
  Lines       4567    4573       +6     
  Branches     562     563       +1     
========================================
  Hits         385     385              
- Misses      4165    4171       +6     
  Partials      17      17              

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

Copy link
Member

@oguzhankoral oguzhankoral left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Code-wise ok to me, but can't say (yet) anything about expected behavior for this.

Copy link
Member

@didimitrie didimitrie left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@clairekuang could we do a very fast performance benchmark on this before we merge?
basically delete the data.db from appdata/speckle, and send the advanced sample model (should be enough) with and without units on each parameter.

it should be fine overall, but i'd want to quantify what we're sacrificing in terms of performance!

code wise everything ok!

@clairekuang
Copy link
Member Author

@clairekuang could we do a very fast performance benchmark on this before we merge? basically delete the data.db from appdata/speckle, and send the advanced sample model (should be enough) with and without units on each parameter.

Tested on the sample structural model, adding units was about a 5.6% increase in size :0
image
commit with units: https://latest.speckle.systems/projects/3f895e614f/models/7367fe3688@e30926e581

@didimitrie didimitrie merged commit b821a15 into dev Sep 27, 2024
5 checks passed
@didimitrie didimitrie deleted the claire/cnx-540-store-units-next-to-values branch September 27, 2024 14:58
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