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

Adjust indexing for content of InvestStorageBlock #1039

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Aug 20, 2024

Conversation

p-snft
Copy link
Member

@p-snft p-snft commented Jan 19, 2024

Fix #1030

The file has a lot of duplication and should be reworked. I try to provide a quick fix without changing too much but I failed once already.

Additional todos I think that are needed because of my experience in #1038.

  • Implement proper unit test for storage with investment.
  • Carefully adjust lp files without changing existing lines.

p-snft and others added 2 commits January 18, 2024 14:23
Adjust indexing to be same as for content of storage without investment.
This shifts the inital time step to be consistent with a non-invest
storage for models allowing only upfront-invest.

Known issues: For multi-period models, the inconsistent behaviour persists
because the TIMEINDEX does not make a difference between TIMEPOINTS and
TIMESTEPS.
@pep8speaks
Copy link

pep8speaks commented Aug 14, 2024

Hello @p-snft! Thanks for updating this PR. We checked the lines you've touched for PEP 8 issues, and found:

There are currently no PEP 8 issues detected in this Pull Request. Cheers! 🍻

Comment last updated at 2024-08-14 11:10:55 UTC

p-snft added 3 commits August 14, 2024 13:05
As there is one more tim step, there is one more variable.
The attributes exist for all of the storages in the set.
@p-snft
Copy link
Member Author

p-snft commented Aug 14, 2024

I pulled this into #1080 to fix it without having to rewrite lp files.

@p-snft p-snft merged commit 92a3504 into dev Aug 20, 2024
10 of 13 checks passed
@p-snft p-snft deleted the fix/invest_storage_content_revised branch September 2, 2024 14:50
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

First time step of storage_content sequence is missing
2 participants