Delete Merging View implementation #2612
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Anne Tilloy <anne.tilloy@rte-france.com>
|
Don't forget to remove references to the merging view in the website. A quick search gives me the list of artifacts, but there are potential other pages. |
Signed-off-by: Anne Tilloy <anne.tilloy@rte-france.com>
| @@ -114,22 +113,19 @@ void microGridBaseCaseBEMergingViewNL() { | |||
| // Both networks have the same number of dangling lines | |||
| assertEquals(nDlBE, nDlNL); | |||
|
|
|||
| Network n = MergingView.create("be-nl", "CGMES"); | |||
| n.merge(nl, be); | |||
| be.merge(nl); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We see here that we have an equivalence now between the merging view and the destructive merge for equipments.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this test can be merged with the test above microGridBaseCaseBEMergedWithNL, they check the same thing now...
| compareMerges(tieLineId, assembled, ds1, ds2); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| private static void compareMerges(String tieLineId, ReadOnlyDataSource dsAssembled, ReadOnlyDataSource ds1, ReadOnlyDataSource ds2) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Tie lines in the merging view and in the destructive merge are now equivalent. These tests can be deleted.
| @@ -114,22 +113,19 @@ void microGridBaseCaseBEMergingViewNL() { | |||
| // Both networks have the same number of dangling lines | |||
| assertEquals(nDlBE, nDlNL); | |||
|
|
|||
| Network n = MergingView.create("be-nl", "CGMES"); | |||
| n.merge(nl, be); | |||
| be.merge(nl); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this test can be merged with the test above microGridBaseCaseBEMergedWithNL, they check the same thing now...
annetill
requested review from
geofjamg
and removed request for
mathbagu and
flo-dup
|
Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed!
|
The merging view is also used in the "powsybl/powsybl-tutorials" repository. |
* Delete merging view iidm implementation. * Clean CGMES tests. --------- Signed-off-by: Anne Tilloy <anne.tilloy@rte-france.com>
Please check if the PR fulfills these requirements
Does this PR already have an issue describing the problem?
Maybe issues are related to the merging view (see issues). After the tie lines refactoring, the sub-networks modeling will be the only tool box for CGMES profiles export.
What kind of change does this PR introduce?
The merging view as IIDM implementation is no more available, too risky to use too hard and costly to fix directly.
What is the current behavior?
What is the new behavior (if this is a feature change)?
Does this PR introduce a breaking change or deprecate an API?
Other information: