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

Add multicontainer and regular pnnl dopf #55

Open
wants to merge 12 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

josephmckinsey
Copy link
Contributor

@josephmckinsey josephmckinsey commented Feb 6, 2024

Currently the multicontainer download fails Fixed.

@josephmckinsey josephmckinsey marked this pull request as ready for review February 7, 2024 18:55
Copy link
Collaborator

@AadilLatif AadilLatif left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

My general rereview is that the use case ran on my machine when tested, but the readability
/ structure of the code base could be improved significantly. Just glancing through the code, I saw many instances where the same logic is repeated multiple time throughout the function.

return self.value


def init_branch() -> dict:
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

should pydantic models be used instead to be consistant ?

return A, b


def optimal_power_flow(
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

this method is unreadable. should be broken down and tested for code complexity

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

There is a lot of code repetition in the file. and probably should undergo a through refactoring if the intent is for folks to understand the OPF implementation

@Tylores
Copy link

Tylores commented Feb 14, 2024

  • cvxpy is not included in requirements.txt so oedisi build fails for the regular scenario.
  • the scenario file includes an "existing_feeder_file" which doesn't have a fallback by the feeder federate if it doesn't exist.
  • docker compose up doesn't work from the project directory and needs to be called from build to work. It should default to build and only need specification if you build to a different folder.
  • There is a PORT environment variable that causes the oedisi broker container to fail.
oedisi-multi-error

@josephmckinsey
Copy link
Contributor Author

  • cvxpy is not included in requirements.txt so oedisi build fails for the regular scenario.

Fixed. Plus I switched to a nested requirements.txt

* the scenario file includes an "existing_feeder_file" which doesn't have a fallback by the feeder federate if it doesn't exist.

I changed this to downloading instead. I do want to warn that the PV power in the gadal_ieee123 right now is still messed up.

* docker compose up doesn't work from the project directory and needs to be called from build to work. It should default to build and only need specification if you build to a different folder.

I don't really have a solution to this since we sort of need the yaml file to be with the build folders

* There is a PORT environment variable that causes the oedisi broker container to fail.
oedisi-multi-error

I think this is part of Aadil's updates on his image. Using --pull=never should probably work, and I think --build on docker compose up should work too.

@josephmckinsey
Copy link
Contributor Author

@AadilLatif I just copied all that code from https://github.com/pnnl/oedisi_dopf, so I'm not sure about fixing it up...

@josephmckinsey
Copy link
Contributor Author

To myself: add a CI test.

)
pcb, qcb = (
-(-z[1, 2][0] - math.sqrt(3) * z[1, 2][1]),
-(-z[0, 2][1] + math.sqrt(3) * z[1, 2][0]),
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

index is incorrect

@josephmckinsey josephmckinsey marked this pull request as draft May 14, 2024 20:29
@josephmckinsey josephmckinsey marked this pull request as ready for review June 12, 2024 19:50
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.

None yet

3 participants