Sensi internal api #260
Sensi internal api #260
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Geoffroy Jamgotchian <geoffroy.jamgotchian@rte-france.com>
Signed-off-by: Geoffroy Jamgotchian <geoffroy.jamgotchian@rte-france.com>
Signed-off-by: Geoffroy Jamgotchian <geoffroy.jamgotchian@rte-france.com>
Signed-off-by: Geoffroy Jamgotchian <geoffroy.jamgotchian@rte-france.com>
Signed-off-by: Geoffroy Jamgotchian <geoffroy.jamgotchian@rte-france.com>
| @@ -282,45 +214,50 @@ public boolean isConnectedToComponent(Set<LfBus> connectedComponent) { | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| static class LfBranchFlowPerPSTAngle extends LfBranchPerPSTAngle { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ideally we should also refactor LfFactor subclasses to reflect new more generic API
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yep, this would be great, do you want to do it within this PR, or another one ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This PR is already very large, I think we should do it in another PR. Any idea how to do it?
| read(handler, factor); | ||
| } | ||
| // FIXME additional factors are not yet supported | ||
| if (!sensitivityFactorsProvider.getAdditionalFactors(network).isEmpty()) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How do you think additional factors should be managed ? Do we pass additional info inside the context, or do we need to change the handler's methods ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We can add contingency ID to handler
| @@ -282,45 +214,50 @@ public boolean isConnectedToComponent(Set<LfBus> connectedComponent) { | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| static class LfBranchFlowPerPSTAngle extends LfBranchPerPSTAngle { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yep, this would be great, do you want to do it within this PR, or another one ?
Signed-off-by: Geoffroy Jamgotchian <geoffroy.jamgotchian@rte-france.com>
|
Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed! |
Please check if the PR fulfills these requirements (please use
'[x]'to check the checkboxes, or submit the PR and then click the checkboxes)Does this PR already have an issue describing the problem ? If so, link to this issue using
'#XXX'and skip the restWhat kind of change does this PR introduce? (Bug fix, feature, docs update, ...)
What is the current behavior? (You can also link to an open issue here)
What is the new behavior (if this is a feature change)?
Does this PR introduce a breaking change or deprecate an API? If yes, check the following:
Other information:
(if any of the questions/checkboxes don't apply, please delete them entirely)