-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 173
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
follow-up fix for PR744 #745
Conversation
|
||
q10_transition_to(j2,land_to) .. | ||
sum(land_from, vm_lu_transitions(j2,land_from,land_to)) =e= | ||
vm_land(j2,land_to); | ||
|
||
q10_transition_from(j2,land_from) .. | ||
sum(land_to, vm_lu_transitions(j2,land_from,land_to)) =e= | ||
vm_land.l(j2,land_from) + v10_balance_positive(j2,land_from) - v10_balance_negative(j2,land_from); | ||
pcm_land(j2,land_from); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
why not vm_land.l
? I thought this was one of the points of PR before to have here same accuracy.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It turned out that vm_land.l and pcm_land differ considerably.
It seems that vm_land.l is not updated in all realizations.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good, thanks!
@@ -30,3 +30,5 @@ sets | |||
OC1,OC2,OC7,NT3,NT4,NT7,NT8,NT10,NT12,NT13,NT14,PA11,PA12,PA13,NA5,PA1,PA4,PA5,PA6, | |||
PA8,PA9,PA10,AN99,AT98,NA2,NA6,NA7,NA12,NA99,PA98,PA99,AA12,AA13 / | |||
; | |||
|
|||
alias(biome44,biome44_2); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why is this alias needed?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is needed for the calculation of i44_biome_share(j,biome44)
i44_biome_share(j,biome44) =
(f44_biome_area(j,biome44) + 1e-10) / sum(biome44_2, f44_biome_area(j,biome44_2) + 1e-10);
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Out of curiosity, why does it not work to just use biome44 instead of biome44_2 everywhere?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Because the set biome44
is already under control. It's just not possible in GAMS to do this operation with the same set.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ah, under control means it appears on the left hand side of the equation (or is it an assignment?)?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Under control in GAMS means that all calculations are done for each set element.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks a lot for these extensive and fast updates!
I requested some minor changes.
In addition we should have again a discussion and a decision in the MAgPIE meeting on how to deal with project-specific scenario configs.
@@ -19,5 +19,5 @@ gms$s15_exo_alcohol;1;1;1 | |||
gms$s15_alc_scen;0;0;0 | |||
gms$factor_costs;sticky_labor;sticky_labor;sticky_labor | |||
gms$c70_feed_scen;ssp1;ssp2;ssp2 | |||
input['cellular'];rev4.115EL2_h12_c6a7458f_cellularmagpie_c200_IPSL-CM6A-LR-ssp370_lpjml-8e6c5eb1.tgz;; | |||
input['cellular'];rev4.116EL2_h12_c6a7458f_cellularmagpie_c200_IPSL-CM6A-LR-ssp370_lpjml-8e6c5eb1.tgz;; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Not entirely sure, whether we'd come up with a final decision on this, but I thought that it is now in the responsibility of the people taking care of the respective projects to keep the project-specific scenario_configs up to date. Similar as with the project related start scripts?
Maybe we could have a dedicated discussion on this again in the MAgPIE meeting.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for bringing this up. Let's discuss about this in the MAgPIE meeting.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The FSEC scenario config maybe a separate case, or maybe even not (see comment above). One idea of splitting the project specific settings from the main scenario_config was that for general developments only the main scenario_config must be updated and thereby taking away the burden of also maintaining project-specific ones.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Since we use FSEC in our default test runs, it should be updated from my view.
Co-authored-by: pvjeetze <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: pvjeetze <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: pvjeetze <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: pvjeetze <[email protected]>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for the updates. Looks good for me now.
I only have a minor addtional comment regarding the placement of code in the preloop.
🐦 Description of this PR 🐦
this PR resolves the following issues:
a) land area is not constant over time
b) infeasibilites in 44_biodiversity module in FSEC runs
🔧 Checklist for PR creator 🔧
Label pull request from the label list.
Self-review own code
magpie4
R library has been updated accordingly and backwards compatible where necessary.scenario_config.csv
has been updated accordingly (important ifdefault.cfg
has been updated)Document changes
CHANGELOG.md
goxygen::goxygen()
and verify the modified code is properly documentedPerform test runs
Rscript start.R --> "compilation check"
Rscript start.R --> "test runs"
Rscript start.R --> "test runs"
All default test runs including 4 FSEC runs (test_runs.R) are feasible.
📉 Performance changes 📈
🚨 Checklist for reviewer 🚨
CHANGELOG
is updated correctly