Replies: 3 comments 7 replies
-
For my understanding: API and CLI support mean that you can in fact leave these fields away, and they will look for the fallback? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I'd like to add a column for UI support if you agree, in that it should be possible to edit these fallback fields in the UI. In the end, editing the |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
To me, it seems the relevant ones are (I mark the set I propose to tackle first with a star, looking into a typical battery problem): Flex-model:
Flex-Context:
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
We aim to support flex-model and flex-context fields on the data model, at least the ones where that makes sense to the user (up until now, they are expected to be sent via the API - that is highly flexible, but with the number of fields we have grows to be less user-friendly. It will always remain a power user feature, but the data model is a more convenient place for many).
In this discussion, we collaborate on which fields to start with and how to represent values.
It also serves as a page to track compatibility of dedicated fallback attributes for API and CLI flex model fields. That is, which fields already support falling back to a sensor attribute or asset attribute.
For flex-model fields, we look for fallback attributes on the sensor first, then on the asset that the sensor belongs to:
For flex-context fields, we have fallback attributes on the asset:
Related discussion: #827
Footnotes
We have plans to replace dashes with underscores and move units from the attribute's key to the attribute's value: see https://github.com/FlexMeasures/flexmeasures/issues/911 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8 ↩9 ↩10 ↩11 ↩12
We have plans to rename these: see https://github.com/FlexMeasures/flexmeasures/issues/774 ↩ ↩2
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions