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

Input data checks and validation #6

Open
7 of 14 tasks
anamileva opened this issue Jan 9, 2017 · 3 comments
Open
7 of 14 tasks

Input data checks and validation #6

anamileva opened this issue Jan 9, 2017 · 3 comments
Labels
priority: high theme: validation updates to the validation suite type: enhancement improvements to existing functionality

Comments

@anamileva
Copy link
Member

anamileva commented Jan 9, 2017

  • Mismatching operational types (e.g. binary commit and new build)
  • New build projects have to be self consistent with new build vintage costs (gen / storage / tx)
  • Validate that at least one project is contributing to each reserve/policy/reliability zone. Currently, we can have reserve/policy/reliability zone with no projects that can contribute toward meeting their target, see Validate that at least one project is contributing to each reserve/policy/reliability zone #347.
  • Disallow combination of certain availability types and capacity types. Since capacity is multiplied by derate, we can't allow combinations of availability types and capacity types where both are decision variables. That means we have to disallow endogenous availability derates and new build or retirement capacity types. See Disallow combination of certain availability types and capacity types #249. Edit: closing since non-linear problems are actually okay, just harder to solve.
  • Provide useful error messages when the wrong key words are given to e.g run_scenario.py; right now the original wrong keyword error is obscured and the model will fail at a later stage; see Error-handling for missing or incorrectly specified script arguments #111.
  • Validate missing var profiles (right now just a warning, see discussion in Refactor loading in variable profiles #543).
  • Validate that hydro avg is between min and max.
  • Validate that the horizons specified in structure.csv matched those in horizon_params.csv (or the equivalent database tables).
  • add basic general validation to capacity types similar to operational types
  • Validate that fully deliverable energy iimited projects are assigned a min duration for full cap credit (removed in Consolidate database utilities #605)
  • Validate that energy only allowed projects are assigned a deliverability group and that other types don’t have one (removed in Consolidate database utilities #605)
  • Check that all 'fully_deliverable_energy_limited' projects are assigned a min_duration_for_full_capacity_credit_hours
  • Check if all ''energy_only_allowed' projects are assigned a 'deliverability group' and that other types are not assigned one
  • Mismatched temporal setup and project balancing types (e.g. Missing definition of 'year' horizon not caught during validation #819)
@gerritdm
Copy link
Contributor

gerritdm commented May 1, 2019

Updated the comment to add a couple sub-tasks. I imagine this list will grow as we come up with more input validation checks. The foreign keys in the database might be a good start to find inputs that have to be self-consistent (but in that case, wouldn't the database already insure they are?)

@gerritdm gerritdm added the type: enhancement improvements to existing functionality label May 1, 2019
@anamileva anamileva added this to the Public Release milestone Sep 8, 2019
@gerritdm gerritdm changed the title Input data checks Input data checks and validation Apr 9, 2020
@anamileva anamileva added priority: high theme: validation updates to the validation suite labels May 6, 2020
anamileva added a commit that referenced this issue May 14, 2020
@anamileva anamileva removed this from the Soft Public Release milestone Aug 5, 2020
@anamileva
Copy link
Member Author

@gerritdm, could you take a look and update this issue in case any of the remaining items have actually been fixed?

@gerritdm
Copy link
Contributor

Just reviewed this and crossed out one more.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
priority: high theme: validation updates to the validation suite type: enhancement improvements to existing functionality
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants