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

Move over deprecated soc-targets field #566

Merged
merged 10 commits into from Dec 30, 2022

Conversation

Flix6x
Copy link
Contributor

@Flix6x Flix6x commented Dec 29, 2022

Fixes the following bugs:

  • test_trigger_and_get_schedule was not checking for soc-targets sent in the deprecated soc-targets field
  • test_trigger_and_get_schedule was not taking into account efficiency losses when checking soc-targets
  • test_trigger_and_get_schedule was not checking for soc-targets sent within the flex-model field
  • test_trigger_and_get_schedule was assuming wrong units for the soc-max and soc-targets fields, thereby creating an unsolvable scheduling problem
  • The deprecated soc-targets field was hidden in an unused **kwargs variable, and not moved over to become part of the flex-model field
  • The deprecated soc-targets field was still being deserialized by the API endpoint rather than by the scheduler
  • The SoC state was stored with the wrong units as an asset attribute

…duler rather than by the /schedules/trigger/ endpoint

Signed-off-by: F.N. Claessen <felix@seita.nl>
Signed-off-by: F.N. Claessen <felix@seita.nl>
Signed-off-by: F.N. Claessen <felix@seita.nl>
Signed-off-by: F.N. Claessen <felix@seita.nl>
…to SoC units

Signed-off-by: F.N. Claessen <felix@seita.nl>
…at we set up the constraints for an infeasible problem; let's remedy that

Signed-off-by: F.N. Claessen <felix@seita.nl>
…unit

Signed-off-by: F.N. Claessen <felix@seita.nl>
… to do

Signed-off-by: F.N. Claessen <felix@seita.nl>
Signed-off-by: F.N. Claessen <felix@seita.nl>
@Flix6x Flix6x added the bug Something isn't working label Dec 29, 2022
@Flix6x Flix6x added this to the 0.12.0 milestone Dec 29, 2022
@Flix6x Flix6x requested a review from nhoening December 29, 2022 21:38
@Flix6x Flix6x self-assigned this Dec 29, 2022
@Flix6x
Copy link
Contributor Author

Flix6x commented Dec 29, 2022

Given the number of bugs, perhaps we should mention this PR in the changelog (together with #511 and #537)?

@coveralls
Copy link
Collaborator

coveralls commented Dec 29, 2022

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 3805594227

  • 4 of 5 (80.0%) changed or added relevant lines in 2 files are covered.
  • 3 unchanged lines in 2 files lost coverage.
  • Overall coverage decreased (-0.04%) to 65.54%

Changes Missing Coverage Covered Lines Changed/Added Lines %
flexmeasures/data/models/planning/storage.py 3 4 75.0%
Files with Coverage Reduction New Missed Lines %
flexmeasures/data/models/planning/storage.py 1 89.19%
flexmeasures/data/models/planning/utils.py 2 80.99%
Totals Coverage Status
Change from base Build 3801856437: -0.04%
Covered Lines: 6838
Relevant Lines: 9802

💛 - Coveralls

@nhoening
Copy link
Contributor

Given the number of bugs, perhaps we should mention this PR in the changelog (together with #511 and #537)?

yes

Copy link
Contributor

@nhoening nhoening left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thank for catching these!!

Signed-off-by: F.N. Claessen <felix@seita.nl>
@Flix6x Flix6x merged commit f795136 into main Dec 30, 2022
@Flix6x Flix6x deleted the move-over-deprecated-soc-targets-field branch December 30, 2022 08:03
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
API bug Something isn't working Scheduling
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants