pre/post data processors to use range/domain terminology?
Nobody has claimed this yet.
Assessment
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Newbie friendliness
- 25/100
Research direction
Start by locating the pre/post data processor definitions and the projector pair APIs referenced in the issue. Trace every use of the current pre-forward and post-back terminology, then determine the complete naming and compatibility scope before updating references and relevant tests.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Description
Might be worth considering changing our pre/post data processors to using range and domain terminology.
That way, pre-forward and post-back data processors would both have the same name. They could then be set via the projector pair, and still be explicit as to what they'll act on.
- Dominant language
- C++
- Stars
- 160
- Forks
- 113
- Avg merge
- 12d 15h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 1
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
More from UCL/STIR
-
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 68/100
-
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 68/100
-
Difficulty 3/5 1-2 days Newbie friendliness 68/100
Similar issues
-
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 86/100
-
Sensor initialization takes very long when `--initial-sim-time` is set to current UNIX timestamp Open
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 78/100
gazebosim/gz-sensors#662 · 1 comment ·
-
enhancement
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 76/100
-
comp-datalake
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 88/100
ClickHouse/ClickHouse#121222 ·
-
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 68/100
LadybirdBrowser/ladybird#12123 ·