Split out time aggregation to its own rule#1065
Merged
fneum merged 2 commits intoPyPSA:masterfrom May 20, 2024
Merged
Conversation
fneum
approved these changes
May 20, 2024
7 tasks
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
As noted, build year aggregation as in #1056 doesn't work as implemented when combined with time series segmentation because the segmentation could (and often is) different for different planning horizons.
Changes proposed in this Pull Request
The present PR splits time aggregation off into its own rule which is run only once for all planning horizons. This rule is what constructs the new subset of snapshots and their weights; the aggregation of time-dependent data is performed in
prepare_sector_network.pyI thought this isn't a terrible thing even independently of build year aggregation; there might be other times when you want to directly compare the same network at different planning horizons snapshot-to-snapshot. I also imagine it might be a little easier to implement new time aggregation features as this step is now a little more isolated and easier to comprehend.
Do let me know if this seems like a reasonable idea or not, or if anyone could imagine a different but better way of achieving the same objective.
Checklist
envs/environment.yaml.config.default.yaml.doc/configtables/*.csv.doc/release_notes.rstis added.