Skip to content
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

Improve phase shifter necessary to connectivity detection #470

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Mar 9, 2022

Conversation

annetill
Copy link
Member

@annetill annetill commented Mar 9, 2022

Signed-off-by: Anne Tilloy anne.tilloy@rte-france.com

Please check if the PR fulfills these requirements (please use '[x]' to check the checkboxes, or submit the PR and then click the checkboxes)

  • The commit message follows our guidelines
  • Tests for the changes have been added (for bug fixes / features)
  • Docs have been added / updated (for bug fixes / features)

Does this PR already have an issue describing the problem ? If so, link to this issue using '#XXX' and skip the rest

What 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:

  • The Breaking Change or Deprecated label has been added
  • The migration guide has been updated in the github wiki (What changes might users need to make in their application due to this PR?)

Other information:

(if any of the questions/checkboxes don't apply, please delete them entirely)

Signed-off-by: Anne Tilloy <anne.tilloy@rte-france.com>
@annetill annetill requested a review from geofjamg March 9, 2022 07:43
Signed-off-by: Geoffroy Jamgotchian <geoffroy.jamgotchian@gmail.com>
Copy link
Member

@geofjamg geofjamg left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I changed a little bit the test, could you check it is ok for you?

@@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ public void initialize(LfNetwork network) {
List<LfBranch> controllerBranches = new ArrayList<>(1);
List<LfBranch> disabledBranches = new ArrayList<>(1);
for (LfBranch branch : network.getBranches()) {
if (branch.isPhaseController() && branch.isPhaseControlEnabled()) {
if (!branch.isDisabled() && branch.isPhaseController() && branch.isPhaseControlEnabled()) {
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Your check is not equivalent to mine. I see that we have two cases:

  • If the controller branch is disabled, the connectivity analysis is not necessary.
  • If the controlled branch is disabled, the connectivity analysis is not necessary.
    It is not exactly what we are doing, no?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If the controlled branch is in contingency, the branch.isPhaseControlEnabled() gives false?

@sonarqubecloud
Copy link

sonarqubecloud bot commented Mar 9, 2022

Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed!    Quality Gate passed

Bug A 0 Bugs
Vulnerability A 0 Vulnerabilities
Security Hotspot A 0 Security Hotspots
Code Smell A 0 Code Smells

85.7% 85.7% Coverage
0.0% 0.0% Duplication

@annetill annetill merged commit cdd09dd into main Mar 9, 2022
@annetill annetill deleted the phase_shifter_necessary_connectivity_2 branch March 9, 2022 10:09
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants