Thermo Special Interest Group met on February 28, 2023 from 9:30 am till 11:35 am, Central European Time.
Agenda
- Errata & Clarifications on ICapeThermoCompounds
- Tests on implementations of ICapeThermoCompounds and ICapeThermoPropertyRoutine
Participants
AmsterCHEM (represented by Jasper van BATEN), BASF (represented by Sergej BLAGOV), KBC (represented by Richard SZCZEPANSKI), University of Cape Town (represented by Klaus MÖLLER), Michel PONS (Consultant as Chief Technology Officer).
Highlights
ICapeThermoCompounds: Thermo SIG sorted out the situation about constraints, and therefore potential testing, on CAS Registry Numbers for instance returned by method GetCompoundList. A clarification was introduced in the Errata & Clarifications document pertaining to ICapeThermoCompounds. The new redaction introduced by this clarification leads to a best practice test, rather than a compliance test, on how the CAS numbers returned exhibit a valid structure, in accordance with the rules set by CAS. As with most, if not all, tests in the CAPE-OPEN Test Suite, the value returned will not be checked as a value. However, tthe structure of any CAS number will be tested.
A decision was also made about testing how methods GetPDependentProperty and GetTDependentProperty work when UNDEFINED is used as input for argument compIds. An information will be reported in case of success, detailing the limits of the Test made, since the corresponding compliance Test may be covering only a subset of the properties supported (due to the lack of a common temperature or pressure, valid for all compounds). The design of the CAPE-OPEN Test Suite allows for information to be reported within a Test. It is when designing a Test that the need to report ad-hoc pieces of information must be defined. So far the success condition of a Test has been designed without any information reported, except the basic fact that the Test is a success.
Thermo SIG continued the discussion from the previous meeting on Errata & Clarifications for ICapeThermoPropertyRoutine, and specifically for its CheckSinglePhasePropSpec method.
While a consensus has not been reached, the decision was made that, for method CheckSinglePhasePropSpec, it is not the caller responsibility to check that the property identifier is corresponding to one of the properties declared as supported by the Property Package, while it is the caller responsibility to check that the phaseLabel used as input for this same method, identifies a Phase supported by the Property Package.
Next meeting is scheduled for March 7, 2023.
