Stability and limits

[orso82]

No description provided.

[orso82]

@tylerbcote please take a look when you have time. I think the ActorStabilityLimits is quite simpler now.

I still don't see the point of having the ActorStability. We use common interface actors when we have multiple actors that carry out the same functionality. But in this case I don't think there's the need for this. Like we don't have multiple MHD codes that we can run (in fact we have none right now haha).

But let's pretend we have more than one MHD Actors in FUSE (eg. ActorGATO and ActorDCON). Then we could use ActorStability to run either one with a common interface... all good. Now, I'd expect one could set ActorStabilityLimit.model = [:ActorStability]. This is not how things are setup now.

I would then remove ActorStability since it does not add anything, and then add it when the need shows up. The use-case will be clear then, and adding it back will take ~10 mins of work.

[tylerbcote]

@orso82 This all looks good to me. The changes with resize! by symbol really help clean things up and the improved model handling really help clean up the code. And reimplementing the raise_on_breach was next on my list.

I agree about ActorStability as well. It was unnecessary at the current stage. Even in the future, I think that ActorStabilityLimits and some hypothetical ActorStabilityCodes would likely be isolated because the code based actor might have a different purpose than the stability limits. So we can cross that bridge if/when we get there.

I think next steps for me will be to expand out the model and collection pool so we can start using this for specific scenario development.

[orso82]

Fantastic! Thank you for all the effort you have put in so far :) I agree the next step is now to expand the on the models and the regimes/scenarios they apply.