-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 47
Implement loading_<side> for three winding transformer
#1218
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Clemens Korner <clemens.korner@gmail.com>
2ce525e to
bc5210b
Compare
mgovers
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hi @kornerc,
Great start! Already had a quick look and found 2 minor things. Can you please also update the documentation?
| double loading(double s_1, double s_2, double s_3) const final { | ||
| return std::max({s_1 / sn_1_, s_2 / sn_2_, s_3 / sn_3_}); | ||
| return std::max({loading_1(s_1), loading_2(s_2), loading_3(s_3)}); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
we may even move this implementation to the Branch3 class as it is probably generic to say that the loading is the max loading across all sides for any possible Branch3 combined. Optional, though...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes I can do that.
Should this method also be final?
I guess to be on the safe, it would be useful that if needed subclasses can overrite this method.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
i think you don't need to make it final because it implies virtual and it means that it is probably not inlined. without virtual is better because inline is implied (as it's a member function in a header file). if in the future (quite unlikely but who knows) we do need to make it virtual, we always can.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The implementation of loading is now in Branch3.
Co-authored-by: Martijn Govers <martygovers@hotmail.com> Signed-off-by: Clemens Korner <clemens.korner@gmail.com>
|
Three other points which I have noticed:
|
There is a separate
In principle, all existing tests will remain functioning as-is. It would be nice to update one or two of the cases to reflect the new additions or add a separate one, but you don't have to revisit all of them. To update them, you can open one of the
I think it would be nice to have that, but please do so in a separate PR (if you like, you can make a GitHub issue for it). Similarly, the templates are - of course - technically not automatically generated, so maybe you can put that string in the |
loading_<site> for three winding transformerloading_<side> for three winding transformer
|
@kornerc small remark. I've assigned this to you and made a small change in the title: site -> side |
Signed-off-by: Clemens Korner <clemens.korner@gmail.com>
|
The PR is ready to be merged from my perspective!
Thanks for fixing!
I've did that.
I agree, let's don't address this in this PR. |
Fixes issue: #1204