Rename Line as BeamLine
#15
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
I would merge this after #16, since it's easier to rebase, rather than the other way around. |
jlvay
approved these changes
Aug 7, 2025
Merged
ax3l
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 7, 2025
Push a new patch for the PyPI package, to include #15.
ax3l
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 15, 2025
### Overview
With the implementation in the main branch, if we add a `name` attribute
to the `line` object created in the FODO example, the attribute is
ignored and the output is
```yaml
kind: Line
line:
- drift1:
kind: Drift
length: 0.25
- quad1:
MagneticMultipoleP:
Bn1: 1.0
kind: Quadrupole
length: 1.0
- drift2:
kind: Drift
length: 0.5
- quad2:
MagneticMultipoleP:
Bn1: -1.0
kind: Quadrupole
length: 1.0
- drift3:
kind: Drift
length: 0.5
```
This is not consistent with the example in
https://github.com/campa-consortium/pals/blob/main/examples/fodo.pals.yaml.
With the implementation in this branch, if we add a `name` attribute to
the `line` object created in the FODO example, the attribute is stored
and the output is
```yaml
fodo_cell:
kind: BeamLine
line:
- drift1:
kind: Drift
length: 0.25
- quad1:
MagneticMultipoleP:
Bn1: 1.0
kind: Quadrupole
length: 1.0
- drift2:
kind: Drift
length: 0.5
- quad2:
MagneticMultipoleP:
Bn1: -1.0
kind: Quadrupole
length: 1.0
- drift3:
kind: Drift
length: 0.5
```
which is consistent with the example in
https://github.com/campa-consortium/pals/blob/main/examples/fodo.pals.yaml.
This is achieved primarily by deriving the `Line` (`BeamLine` after #15)
class from the base element class `BaseElement` instead of deriving it
from Pydantic's base model class `BaseModel`.
I also merged the custom field validation of the `line` field with the
custom model validation, since we needed one anyways to fix the
deserialization. I don't see why they should be separate.
I wonder if the right way to do this is using `@model_serializer`
instead of `@model_validator`...
### To do
- [x] Serialization (fixed with
[c391e43](c391e43),
very few lines changed)
- [x] Deserialization (fixed with the custom model validator, many more
lines changed)
- [x] Cleaning
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR renames
LineasBeamLine, which I think is consistent with the current version of PALS, see, e.g.,extracted from https://github.com/campa-consortium/pals/blob/main/examples/fodo.pals.yaml.