Skip to content
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

Add KinematicViscosity scientific unit #611

Merged
merged 11 commits into from
Jan 10, 2023

Conversation

chrfilip
Copy link
Contributor

#593

This PR adds the KinematicViscosity scientific unit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viscosity#Kinematic_viscosity

Important: Due to a known issue(#453) the converters below are not implemented
KinematicViscosity -> Time
Time -> KinematicViscosity

Copy link
Contributor

@jtomanik jtomanik left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'd like to see more contextual info in tests in any form that you see fit for the purpose

@jtomanik
Copy link
Contributor

Not really related to this pr but imo interesting nonetheless:
Do we know what is the rule if we do an operation on mixed systems?

With time it's simple (thank god French idea of dividing the Day into 100 hours with 100 minutes each didn't stick in metric system) but what would be the correct answer for:

Imperial unit / Metric unit = some Imperial/Metric derived unit

Should the result be in Imperial or Metric systems?
🤔

@jtomanik
Copy link
Contributor

I'm adding @avdyushin as a second reviewer as he, afaik, also was adding some scientific units sometime ago

@chrfilip
Copy link
Contributor Author

Not really related to this pr but imo interesting nonetheless: Do we know what is the rule if we do an operation on mixed systems?

With time it's simple (thank god French idea of dividing the Day into 100 hours with 100 minutes each didn't stick in metric system) but what would be the correct answer for:

Imperial unit / Metric unit = some Imperial/Metric derived unit

Should the result be in Imperial or Metric systems? 🤔

This is a good question which i did to myself as well and i counter-questioned myself with "Should we ever reach that point? And if we do something about this would it be correct?"
I mean the consumer would be responsible for using the correct units, right? Maybe we should constraint and not allow such operation(?)

…c-unit

* develop: (37 commits)
  Roll back package name
  Update api
  Added ticket and google API changes refs in comments
  Fixed comments
  Fixed comments
  Code cleanup
  Reversed to deprecated code as it seems to work for now
  fixed capturing parameters for 4 param method
  Remove require
  Update API
  discoverBondedDevices added to settings
  Return filter itself if no service UUIDs available
  Unwrap nullable list
  Provide serviceUUIDs into PairedAdvertisementData
  Update API
  Lint
  Fix incorrect empty identifier in Android mock
  Simplify test
  Fix hang test
  Update Bluetooth.kt
  ...
@Daeda88
Copy link
Contributor

Daeda88 commented Jan 3, 2023

Not really related to this pr but imo interesting nonetheless: Do we know what is the rule if we do an operation on mixed systems?

With time it's simple (thank god French idea of dividing the Day into 100 hours with 100 minutes each didn't stick in metric system) but what would be the correct answer for:

Imperial unit / Metric unit = some Imperial/Metric derived unit

Should the result be in Imperial or Metric systems? 🤔

There's usually multiple operations for the same quantity to account for this. So we have an imperial / imperial = imperal. And often also a CGS unit / CGS unit -> CGS unit (which is already metric, just not the si unit). However, for unspecified combinations (e.g. Imperial / Metric) we will always default to the SI unit

Copy link
Contributor

@Daeda88 Daeda88 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Conversion is wrong, as well as some operators

@chrfilip chrfilip requested review from jtomanik and Daeda88 January 6, 2023 08:38
Copy link
Contributor

@jtomanik jtomanik left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@chrfilip chrfilip merged commit 04d1b99 into develop Jan 10, 2023
@chrfilip chrfilip deleted the feature/593-kinematic-viscosity-scientific-unit branch January 10, 2023 08:47
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants