-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 153
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
Clarify add_macro() behaviour on a non-'clean' Scenario #320
Comments
Postponing to after v3.0. |
No one was assigned to do this by the feature freeze for v3.2.0, so we postpone to v3.3 (or later). |
No one was assigned to do this by the feature freeze for v3.3.0, so we postpone to v3.4 (or later). |
No one was assigned to do this for v3.4.0, so we postpone to v3.5 (or later). |
No one was assigned to do this by the feature freeze for v3.5.0, so we postpone to v3.6 (or later). |
Removing the milestone entirely. It can be re-added if/when the team decides to schedule/assign the work. |
In #223, there was a discussion (#223 (comment)) of how Scenario.add_macro should behave when the target Scenario already contains MACRO-related items or data; i.e. should it:
At minimum, a clear description of the behaviour is needed before this feature can be released with message_ix 3.0. Ideally, more thorough checks and informative messages would help users avoid errors.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: