Dilan Pathirana

> I am a bit unhappy about the `experimentId` notation. On the one hand the meaning of that column will be semantically quite difficult to describe. To me, it simply...

> denested table above looks very clean and easy to understand. I don't see big disadvantages. Agreed, this should be allowed regardless if we adopt the long format; this means...

Well, this did not go the way I expected! But there were some good additional suggestions, thanks for the feedback :slightly_smiling_face: Unless someone says otherwise, I'll make a suggestion for...

> Thanks a lot Dilan for accommodation the suggestions from #585 .🙏 Looks good to me for the most part, but I have two questions Sure! Thanks for the feedback....

> Would it be an option to permit empty `conditionId`s in the experiment table where the model would be simulated with the default model parameters? Just so we're talking about...

I can reproducibly produce the error below. The error is not unexpected since I am setting up a custom simulator that builds on `simulate_petab`, and this custom simulator isn't really...

> I added a test case in https://github.com/AMICI-dev/AMICI/pull/2484, does this pass for you? The first version of this PR passed for me. The current version fails with ``` FAILED test_swig_interface.py::test_python_exceptions...

There is already this action [1], which runs on Mondays and Thursdays currently [2], that shows the current `main` fails the quality checks. It might make sense to change this...

It could be a caching issue -- maybe the latest versions of quality checks are not installed every time https://github.com/ICB-DCM/pyPESTO/blob/b4a187f8ac10ce0cc12a22f49cd75325f3811d8c/.github/workflows/ci.yml#L344-L350

Thanks for looking in to this. I would be fine with changing the problem in this collection back to being the H1+H3 model, since it's still valid for the benchmark...