Clarify required/optional functions of pumps#603
Merged
marktsuchida merged 1 commit intomainfrom Mar 28, 2025
Merged
Conversation
Contributor
|
@marktsuchida, indeed, these changes are as I intended. I most likely forgot to update the comments after the pressure and volumetric pump split. I should have been more careful. |
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Another followup to #462.
I think the required/optional distinction got partly lost when the pressure and volumetric pumps were separated. @Lars-Kool Do the changes proposed here correctly capture your intent? Let me know if changes are needed.
(The DeviceBase classes should leave out implementations for required functions, so that device code will get a compile error if the function is not implemented.)