-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 135
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
Features/network 0.5 #836
Features/network 0.5 #836
Conversation
Make Sink kwargs explicit
I decided to already merge the changes from #877 to be able to solve merge conflicts. |
Numpy 1.24 does not allow creating an ndarray from ragged nested sequences (which is a list-or-tuple of lists-or-tuples-or ndarrays with different lengths or shapes) anymore. Is this should not be fixed in a feature-branch, I am limiting the numpy version to lower ones.
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.
If I see it correctly, the main change this brings along is that it removes oemof.network.network.Node.registry
, thus requires you to explicitly call energysystem.add(component)
for all your components which I find a good thing as it is sort of a control routine for yourself. I did not do a very thorough review of the remainder since most of it is contained in my review on #877. Thank you for this feature.
@@ -78,12 +78,12 @@ def read(*names, **kwargs): | |||
install_requires=[ | |||
"blinker", | |||
"dill", | |||
"numpy", | |||
"numpy < 1.24", |
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.
You are working on making it support never numpy versions, right?
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.
In my opinion, this should be done before the release of v0.5. However, as the problem was just discovered here, it should be fixed in another PR.
Follows changes between oemof.network v0.4 and v0.5:
The second point has been implemented in #867. I merged this branch here to be able to test the combination of solph v0.5 and network v0.5.
PS: This PR is against feature/restructure_flow, as I included all changes from that branch (cf. #867). It would be cleaner to merge #856 first and merge this into dev afterwards.