Bug fix: support of factors with SKIP status after contingencies #476
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Hadrien-Godard
approved these changes
Mar 18, 2022
geofjamg
requested changes
Mar 18, 2022
| for (LfSensitivityFactor<DcVariableType, DcEquationType> lfFactor : lfFactors) { | ||
| if (lfFactor.getStatus() == LfSensitivityFactor.Status.ZERO) { | ||
| valueWriter.write(lfFactor.getIndex(), contingency != null ? contingency.getIndex() : -1, 0, Double.NaN); | ||
| } else if (contingency != null && lfFactor.getStatus() == LfSensitivityFactor.Status.SKIP) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't know yet what is the right fix but not this one because, all skipped factors are handle at the start of DC sensitivity analysis. So here a value is emitted in the writer a second time.
Signed-off-by: Geoffroy Jamgotchian <geoffroy.jamgotchian@gmail.com>
|
@annetill I refactored the code to discard ZERO and SKIP factors at the very beginning of the analysis and clean useless checks everywhere. Is has changed some of the unit test, where we were writing post contingency output on case of invalid factors in some cases. Is it ok for you? |
geofjamg
approved these changes
Mar 20, 2022
annetill
commented
Mar 21, 2022
| @@ -1865,7 +1865,33 @@ void testGeneratorContingencyNotInMainComponentAndMonitoredBranchNotInMainCompon | |||
| assertEquals(1, result.getPreContingencyValues().size()); | |||
| assertEquals(0.0, result.getSensitivityValue("GEN_1", "T2wT"), LoadFlowAssert.DELTA_POWER); | |||
| assertEquals(Double.NaN, result.getFunctionReferenceValue("T2wT"), LoadFlowAssert.DELTA_POWER); | |||
| assertEquals(0.0, result.getSensitivityValue("GEN_3", "GEN_1", "T2wT"), LoadFlowAssert.DELTA_POWER); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am okay with the change in this unit test.
Signed-off-by: Anne Tilloy <anne.tilloy@rte-france.com>
|
Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed! |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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)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)