You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Following up PR #680, It would be interesting to support extra validation rules in the function validate_storage_constraints (here), that expand case C from covering 1 step towards covering 1, 2, 3, ..., x, ..., n steps, where n is the number of steps in the scheduling horizon. For example, C.1) for x=2 would become something like:
When $e(t)$ and $e(t-2)$ are given, but no $e(t-1)$ is given, then the validation for $e(t) - e(t-2)$ is not already covered by the joint validation for $e(t) - e(t-1)$ and $e(t-1) - e(t-2)$.
Following up PR #680, It would be interesting to support extra validation rules in the function
validate_storage_constraints
(here), that expand case C from covering 1 step towards covering 1, 2, 3, ..., x, ..., n steps, where n is the number of steps in the scheduling horizon. For example, C.1) for x=2 would become something like:And generally, for x (but this probably still needs some love to get correctly parsed):
Perhaps, it would be convenient to have create a difference operator to$diff_{x}[f(t)]$ = $f(t) - f(t-x)$ (syntax TBD).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: