Skip to content

remove voltage step without angles #28

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

Open
wants to merge 6 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

Sander-Timmerman
Copy link

@Sander-Timmerman Sander-Timmerman commented Mar 24, 2025

Fixes issue: # name and number of the issue

Changes proposed in this PR include:

Here you can elaborate on the chosen solution strategy, which changes did you make and which goal do they serve. Perhaps also which things are you still unsure of.

  • The voltage step without angles now gives an error. So we should remove that
  • ..

Could you please pay extra attention to the points below when reviewing the PR:

Here you can point out modules or complex implementation that require special attention, .e.g have a look at module foo.py and bar.py.

  • Did I not miss any reference to the step without voltage angles
  • We now don't use update_data anymore in the state estimation workshop, should be replace this by anything else?
  • ..

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

TODO: also update the solutions in accordance to the workshop itself

Signed-off-by: Sander-Timmerman <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Sander-Timmerman <[email protected]>
…ear not observable error before

Signed-off-by: Sander-Timmerman <[email protected]>
"id": "70cb5b3c",
"metadata": {},
"source": [
"# Assignment 4: Add voltage angle measurements\n",
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Since assignment 3 now only contains an error and not a task, we may want to put them together (3 and 4) back again such that the assignment is to fix the error. However, it is probably better to address the above: How are we going to handle this potentially breaking change.

Comment on lines 1069 to 1046
"delta_u: [0.00028959 0.00037244 0.00042541]\n",
"delta_u: [-0.02183464 -0.02204176 -0.02207393]\n",
"-------------- lines --------------\n",
"delta_p_from: [ 1.69415257 -0.19360323]\n",
"delta_p_to: [-1.7813758 0.13951295]\n",
"delta_q_from: [-4.79719471 -1.68604537]\n",
"delta_q_to: [4.70671219 1.61927823]\n"
"delta_p_from: [-73.84315465 -25.57343819]\n",
"delta_p_to: [73.76371305 25.51731618]\n",
"delta_q_from: [-0.57519337 -0.42228019]\n",
"delta_q_to: [1.89164762 1.67790199]\n"
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Again seeing differences where I don't think there should be. You think is worth taking a look?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

And this is because of different rounding

Copy link
Contributor

@figueroa1395 figueroa1395 Apr 2, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Just triple checking that this expected before resolving (cc @mgovers), maybe you can elaborate a bit more so it is documented somewhere for future reference? Since validation test cases remain intact, I don't expect this to be an issue, but just want to make sure. If you are sure this is fine, feel free to resolve.

Signed-off-by: Sander-Timmerman <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Sander-Timmerman <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Sander-Timmerman <[email protected]>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants