Specify recipe element names

[liamhuber]

Source code is trivial here. I just want to lock down the string values for what we're naming these things. I.e. when we have a recipe entry in some JSON file or whatever and it says type: ... what appears on the other side?

For the logical elements, I'm super comfortable just labelling them based on their operative name for, while-do, try-except[0-n]-finally, and if-elif[0-n]-then[+0-n]-else.

The main sticking points then are the atomic nodes and the subgraph nodes. I'm trying to avoid the term "node" here, because IMO all these are representable as a "node" -- including subgraphs! That's the whole point of allowing nestable and hierarchical graphs.

I don't want to spend ages agonizing over this, but I at least want to spend a hot second getting something several of us can live with.

Alternatives I'm fine with and can think of:

• function: atomic, step
• workflow: macro, graph

[github-actions]

👈 Launch a binder notebook on branch pyiron/flowrep/type_names

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 0% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 95.50%. Comparing base (a57dc78) to head (53bb709).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
flowrep/model.py	0.00%	2 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main      #68      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   95.78%   95.50%   -0.29%     
==========================================
  Files           3        4       +1     
  Lines         665      667       +2     
==========================================
  Hits          637      637              
- Misses         28       30       +2     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[samwaseda]

Maybe "leaf" instead of "function"? I use "function" for the python function so it would be somewhat confusing.

Edit: "atomic" is also fine by me

[liamhuber]

Yeah, I also thought of "leaf", but actually I rejected it because to me "leaf" strongly implies that there are no downstream leaves. Here what we need to communicate is not the status with regard to IO connections, but the fact there is no further internal structure. To that end, "atomic" is actually pretty stellar...except that for our particular background and main user body it's disturbing close to "atomistic"