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

Add roadmap page to User's Guide sphinx docs #1893

Open
wants to merge 5 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

kandersolar
Copy link
Member

  • Closes #xxxx
  • I am familiar with the contributing guidelines
  • Tests added
  • Updates entries in docs/sphinx/source/reference for API changes.
  • Adds description and name entries in the appropriate "what's new" file in docs/sphinx/source/whatsnew for all changes. Includes link to the GitHub Issue with :issue:`num` or this Pull Request with :pull:`num`. Includes contributor name and/or GitHub username (link with :ghuser:`user`).
  • New code is fully documented. Includes numpydoc compliant docstrings, examples, and comments where necessary.
  • Pull request is nearly complete and ready for detailed review.
  • Maintainer: Appropriate GitHub Labels (including remote-data) and Milestone are assigned to the Pull Request and linked Issue.

I think it would be beneficial to keep a roadmap document in a more public-facing spot. Our sphinx docs get way more traffic than github does, so I think housing it on RTD will get it in front of a lot more users. My hope is that this will help keep the roadmap in front of mind, plus maybe attract new contributors. I also like the idea of having a clear process for proposing and accepting edits to the roadmap... just make a PR with the changes.

I took some editorial liberties when assembling this roadmap based on the previous ones. Feedback from anyone reading this is desired.

@kandersolar kandersolar added this to the v0.10.3 milestone Oct 19, 2023
@mikofski
Copy link
Member

Thanks @kandersolar maybe we can take a step further and put some release dates and a few loose goals and priorities for next few releases?

Copy link
Contributor

@jsstein jsstein left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Great job Kevin, Just a few minor suggestions for addition.

* Improved inverter performance models (power factor, off-MPP operation,
thermal derating, MPPT voltage range)
* DC-DC optimizer performance models
* Transformer models
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
* Transformer models
* Transformer models (e.g., efficiency models such as described here: [https://www.linquip.com/blog/efficiency-of-transformer/#:~:text=Similar%20to%20an%20electrical%20device,efficiency%20%3D%20output%2Finput).](url))

Comment on lines +39 to +40
* Improved inverter performance models (power factor, off-MPP operation,
thermal derating, MPPT voltage range)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
* Improved inverter performance models (power factor, off-MPP operation,
thermal derating, MPPT voltage range)
* Improved inverter performance models (power factor, off-MPP operation,
thermal derating, MPPT voltage range) and impacts of off-MPP operation on module temperature.

* Transformer models
* Electrical mismatch functionality
* Improved snow loss models, in particular for bifacial and tracked systems
* Shade models: row-to-row, external (e.g. trees), horizon
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
* Shade models: row-to-row, external (e.g. trees), horizon
* Shade models: row-to-row, external (e.g. trees), horizon, including 3D terrain effects

* Degradation: we can at least provide the trivial linear model, and
add more sophisticated predictive models as they become available.
* More sophisticated single-axis tracker models, e.g. split-boost backtracking,
rotation discretization, stow
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
rotation discretization, stow
rotation discretization, stow (based on wind speed?)

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think stow should be just a boolean series, then the user can set the criteria themselves, e.g.,

..., stow=df['wind_speed']>25, ...

Comment on lines +141 to +142
Additionally, it would be nice to have a project website (pvlib.org?)
with scope going beyond code documentation.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

How would this be different from the GitHub and ReadtheDocs site?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I would be nice to have a website that unites all the pvlib community and projects (pvlib-python, pvanalytics, etc.)

And giving people the website https://pvlib-python.readthedocs.io is kinda rough... pvlib.org would be an important step for pvlib in my opinion

Copy link

@mtheristis mtheristis left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Here are some suggestions coming from the PVPMC.

* Electrical mismatch functionality
* Improved snow loss models, in particular for bifacial and tracked systems
* Shade models: row-to-row, external (e.g. trees), horizon
* Degradation: we can at least provide the trivial linear model, and

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Linear or exponential.

available in pvlib. Irradiance nonuniformity, varied terrain and albedo,
racking shade, and other effects are not accounted for in the current models.
* Updated parameter libraries, e.g. the CEC PV Module database

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

What about parameter translation? CEC -> X model?

* Transformer models
* Electrical mismatch functionality
* Improved snow loss models, in particular for bifacial and tracked systems
* Shade models: row-to-row, external (e.g. trees), horizon

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Inter-row shading for specific technologies, e.g. CdTe, half-cut etc.?

available in pvlib. Irradiance nonuniformity, varied terrain and albedo,
racking shade, and other effects are not accounted for in the current models.
* Updated parameter libraries, e.g. the CEC PV Module database

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Modeling tandem configurations?

@adriesse
Copy link
Member

adriesse commented Oct 20, 2023

Two thoughts:

  • if this is a wish list, why call it a roadmap instead of a wish list?
  • couldn't many of these wishes be turned into issues in which the wishes are also more fully described? Oh yes, you mentioned visibility...maybe we can have links to issues where the wishes are more fully described?

@@ -0,0 +1,153 @@
.. _roadmap:

pvlib Roadmap
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
pvlib Roadmap
pvlib wish list

<https://github.com/pvlib/pvlib-python/wiki/2019-pvlib-python-Development-Roadmap>`_


Core modeling capabilities
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
Core modeling capabilities
Core simulation capabilities

provide a reference implementation.


Auxiliary modeling capabilities
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
Auxiliary modeling capabilities
Broader modeling capabilities

is of significant value. However, making progress here is also somewhat
constrained by the small number of existing published methods that can be
implemented.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
See :issue:`1877`.

@cwhanse cwhanse mentioned this pull request Dec 8, 2023
15 tasks
@kandersolar kandersolar modified the milestones: v0.10.3, v0.10.4 Dec 20, 2023
@kandersolar kandersolar modified the milestones: v0.10.4, v0.10.5 Mar 18, 2024
@kandersolar kandersolar modified the milestones: v0.10.5, 0.11.0 May 3, 2024
@kandersolar kandersolar modified the milestones: 0.11.0, v0.11.1 Jun 14, 2024
@kandersolar kandersolar modified the milestones: v0.11.1, Someday Aug 30, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

@RDaxini RDaxini left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Not sure I am too late on this one but I like the idea of development roadmap and I see this hasn't been merged yet so I figured I'd share a few small thoughts

thermal derating, MPPT voltage range)
* DC-DC optimizer performance models
* Transformer models
* Electrical mismatch functionality
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Since (one type of) shading is listed as a separate point, perhaps it's worth clarifying this with an example or two? Sounds vague by itself

eg. (just a suggestion/idea)

Suggested change
* Electrical mismatch functionality
* Electrical mismatch functionality (e.g. bypass diode protection)

* DC-DC optimizer performance models
* Transformer models
* Electrical mismatch functionality
* Improved snow loss models, in particular for bifacial and tracked systems
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

IIRC from the May 2023 PVPMC, one of the Sandia presentations talked about multijunction/tandem modelling goals for PVPMC as a whole(?)
Also, on the subject of irradiance, the spectral effect on the calculation effective POA irradiance was highlighted in the github wiki 2023 user meeting notes. I think this area still needs work, especially if/when multijunction modelling functionality is added

Suggested change
* Improved snow loss models, in particular for bifacial and tracked systems
* Improved snow loss models, in particular for bifacial and tracked systems
* Multijunction device modelling

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants