Issues arising from adopting the adapter configuration schema for the Micro Manager #78

Activity

1. IshaanDesai

   added

   questionFurther information is requestedFurther information is requested

   schemaRelated to the adapter config schemaRelated to the adapter config schema

   on Sep 25, 2026
2. MakisH commented on Sep 25, 2026

   

   MakisH

   on Sep 25, 2026

   Member

   More actions

   For context:

   • Micro Manager configuration
   • current schema

   The basic example given from the documentation:

   {
     "micro_file_names": ["python/micro.py"],
     "coupling_params": {
       "precice_config_file_name": "precice-config.xml",
       "macro_mesh_name": "Macro-Mesh",
       "read_data_names": ["Macro-Scalar", "Macro-Vector"],
       "write_data_names": ["Micro-Scalar", "Micro-Vector"]
     },
     "simulation_params": {
       "micro_dt": 1.0,
       "macro_domain_bounds": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 1.0]
     }
   }

   The Micro Manager directly accesses the mesh received from the other participants and reads and writes data on it. Since it does not have its own mesh, the notion of an interface is not well-defined. However, having one interface would work.

   Why would macro_mesh_name not be the one to use? I don't see the requirement to provide the mesh. This is still the mesh from precice-config.xml that the Micro Manager needs to know about.

   * A majority of the Micro Manager settings related to micro problems, adaptive solution strategies, load balancing, etc., would need to go under `solver_settings`, although the Micro Manager is not a solver but an orchestration tool. A better name would be `tool_settings`.
   

   This has been discussed in #45, implemented in #48, and I understand you could simply write micro_manager:.

   Additionally, nested objects would need to be allowed under solver_settings to directly bring all Micro Manager settings under it. Not having nested objects would make the Micro Manager configuration difficult to digest.

   Not sure if this is allowed at the moment, but I don't see in principle any reason not to allow that. @Logende?
3. IshaanDesai commented on Sep 26, 2026

   

   IshaanDesai

   on Sep 26, 2026

   MemberAuthor

   More actions

   Why would macro_mesh_name not be the one to use? I don't see the requirement to provide the mesh. This is still the mesh from precice-config.xml that the Micro Manager needs to know about.

   Good point. In that case, having an interface is straightforward.

   I understand you could simply write micro_manager:

   This would be an appropriate header. To the best of my understanding, nested objects are not allowed at the moment. If they are made permissible, then conforming the Micro Manager configuration to the schema would be straightforward.
4. IshaanDesai commented on Oct 1, 2026

   

   IshaanDesai

   on Oct 1, 2026

   MemberAuthor

   More actions

   Resolved via precice/adapter-schema#3
5. IshaanDesai

   closed this as completedon Oct 1, 2026