Codecov Report

Merging #114 (516f3ab) into main (28ad75d) will decrease coverage by 3.92%.
The diff coverage is 31.12%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #114      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   69.06%   65.13%   -3.93%     
==========================================
  Files          25       32       +7     
  Lines        1225     1394     +169     
==========================================
+ Hits          846      908      +62     
- Misses        379      486     +107     

📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more

Is it intentional to have both s0 and s_0?

I see this in the sensor component, I've changed to s_0 for the next check in

About connector naming...there is a problem: when defining a block that combines domains, such as a hydrualic actuator that needs hydraulic and mechanical connectors, we will need to be able to distinguish connectors. For example

function actuator()

    @named H_a = HydraulicPort()
    @named H_b = HydraulicPort()

    @named MT = TranslationalPort()

    eqs = [
        (H_a.p - H_b.p)*area ~ MT.f

        ...
    ]

end

@named act = actuator()

# when making connections we can easily see what like domains are being connected...
eqs = [
    connect(act.H_a, pump.H)
    connect(mass.MT, act.MT)

]

If we decided on a naming scheme now then we can use consistent connector names throughout the Standard Library.

Here is my recommended naming, I am in favor of using capital letters for connectors because they are different from variables, it makes it much easier to read.

#Blocks
B
B_a
B_b

#Electrical/Analog
EA
EA_p #positive
EA_n #negative

#Electrical/Digital
ED
ED_p
ED_n

#Magnetic/FluxTubes
MF
MF_a
MF_b

#Mechanical/Translational
MT
MT_a
MT_b

#Mechanical/Rotational
MR
MR_a
MR_b

#Hydraulic
H
H_a
H_b
H_s #source
H_r #return

What about delta_s0 vs delta_s_0?

What about delta_s0 vs delta_s_0?

I think the _0 will be best to keep a consistent naming like the others s1_0, s2_0 etc...

Will stick with flange, flange_a, etc. for now rather than the connector naming I proposed. But I wonder, should I change the initial condition parameters s1_0 to s_a_0 to better align with flange_a?