Skip to content

Expose neglect_steady in transient Model.headalongline - #181

Merged
dbrakenhoff merged 2 commits into
timflow-org:devfrom
MattBrst:feature/headalongline-neglect-steady
Sep 18, 2026
Merged

dbrakenhoff merged 2 commits into
timflow-org:devfrom
MattBrst:feature/headalongline-neglect-steady

Conversation

@MattBrst

@MattBrst MattBrst commented Sep 18, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Forwards the existing head() neglect_steady flag through headalongline so transient-only heads along a line can be computed once a steady model is linked via Model(steady=...).

Should close issue #180

MattBrst and others added 2 commits September 18, 2026 11:22
Forwards the existing head() neglect_steady flag through headalongline
so transient-only heads along a line can be computed once a steady
model is linked via Model(steady=...).

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
@MattBrst MattBrst changed the title Expose neglect_steady in transient Model.headalongline (#180) Expose neglect_steady in transient Model.headalongline Sep 18, 2026
@dbrakenhoff
dbrakenhoff merged commit 644e0cc into timflow-org:dev Sep 18, 2026
11 checks passed
@mbakker7

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

This is an interesting thought. If I understand it correctly, what you propose is that when a steady model is added to a transient model with Model(steady=...), then you still want to be able to compute the headalongline for just the steady solution. If we implement a neglect_steady option, then we have to do that for a bunch of functions (head, contour, trace, etc.). So I am not sure this is the way to go.

What we are thinking off for the future is to have one "combined" model that includes a steady model and a transient model. For that general model it may indeed be useful to be able to get "only" steady or "only" transient heads. Although I see this was already merged into dev, we may want to re-consider. (And for the future, it may be good to discuss these new additions a bit before submitting a PR, so you don't do unnecessary work).

@MattBrst

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

As written in #180, for me it is OK to revert this PR.

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