Feat: Expand FlexContextSchema with prior commitments #1754
Conversation
Signed-off-by: joshuaunity <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: joshuaunity <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: joshuaunity <[email protected]>
|
I have implemented the commitments, but I don't know how to accept different units. By this, I mean that the object Right now, based on the baseline, I validate the prices on that unit. For example, if we have a baseline of From my current understanding, the CC @nhoening |
Documentation build overview
Show files changed (6 files in total): 📝 6 modified | ➕ 0 added | ➖ 0 deleted
|
|
I'd say for now let's be explicit in the type of commitments that we allow: let's start with one type: MW baseline with EUR/MWh prices. We can extend it later, and maybe have separate schemas for each type of commitment, if that helps. |
…eScheduler Signed-off-by: F.N. Claessen <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: F.N. Claessen <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: joshuaunity <[email protected]>
…easures into feat/flex-commitments
Signed-off-by: joshuaunity <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: joshuaunity <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Felix Claessen <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: JDev <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Felix Claessen <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: JDev <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: joshuaunity <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: joshuaunity <[email protected]>
…easures into feat/flex-commitments
Signed-off-by: F.N. Claessen <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: F.N. Claessen <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: F.N. Claessen <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: F.N. Claessen <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: F.N. Claessen <[email protected]>
… DBFlexContextSchema, so that's the schema we should test against Signed-off-by: F.N. Claessen <[email protected]>
….g. a one-day commitment) Signed-off-by: F.N. Claessen <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: F.N. Claessen <[email protected]>
…itmentSchema Signed-off-by: F.N. Claessen <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: F.N. Claessen <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: F.N. Claessen <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: F.N. Claessen <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: F.N. Claessen <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: F.N. Claessen <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: F.N. Claessen <[email protected]>
…lidation Signed-off-by: F.N. Claessen <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: F.N. Claessen <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: F.N. Claessen <[email protected]>
…s_specs just once Signed-off-by: F.N. Claessen <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: F.N. Claessen <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: F.N. Claessen <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: F.N. Claessen <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: F.N. Claessen <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: F.N. Claessen <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: F.N. Claessen <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: F.N. Claessen <[email protected]>
…x-commitments # Conflicts: # .github/workflows/lint-and-test.yml
Flix6x
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks again for adding those test cases. It helped me figure out what we actually want to support at this point. Right now that is:
- A power baseline only (W, kW, MW, J/s, whatever, but not kWh).
- Up- and down-prices per power unit or per energy unit (so e.g. EUR/kW and EUR/kWh are both fine).
Description
This PR exposes the commitments by modeling the commitments field into the flex-context schema.
Look & Feel
None
How to test
To test this new addition, follow the steps below
http://localhost:5000/api/v3_0/assets/<asset_id>Further Improvements
UI to add this new field. This would be handled in 1572
Related Items
This PR closes #1566
Sign-off