Draft: load scenarios at runtime #259
Open
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
bbortt
added
IN PROGRESS
Type: Feature
Prio: Low
java
tschlat
force-pushed
the
feat/#254-dynamic-scenario-registration-at-runtime
branch
from
12d00cf to
42e08e3
Compare
bbortt
force-pushed
the
feat/#254-dynamic-scenario-registration-at-runtime
branch
from
42e08e3 to
72aeaa7
Compare
bbortt
force-pushed
the
feat/#254-dynamic-scenario-registration-at-runtime
branch
2 times, most recently
from
b429916 to
b5ade58
Compare
bbortt
force-pushed
the
feat/#254-dynamic-scenario-registration-at-runtime
branch
from
b5ade58 to
237d5ec
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
dynamic scenario registration at runtime, based on Java code. happy to hear your thoughts @christophd & @tschlat.
I think it could later be enhanced with a DSL. but since the simulator supports only Java simulations up to now, I think the feature should be implemented step by step.
don't merge! I'll increase the coverage before merging. this code is for sure not bug-free! up until now I've only submitted one integration test to proof the desired behavior.