Skip to content

Conversation

@mfisch42
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@rbolgaryn
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @mfisch42 ,

this repeats the pull request #2117. Is there a reason for it?

@KS-HTK KS-HTK added stale No furter development for more than six month question Further information is requested labels May 14, 2024
# Conflicts:
#	pandapower/converter/powerfactory/pp_import_functions.py
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jul 4, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 5.88235% with 224 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 77.45%. Comparing base (00d9e22) to head (c894c1e).

Files Patch % Lines
...ower/converter/powerfactory/pp_import_functions.py 4.31% 222 Missing ⚠️
pandapower/create.py 66.66% 2 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop    #2118      +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage    77.58%   77.45%   -0.13%     
===========================================
  Files          278      278              
  Lines        31143    31206      +63     
===========================================
+ Hits         24162    24171       +9     
- Misses        6981     7035      +54     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@pawellytaev pawellytaev requested review from ascheidl and rbolgaryn July 4, 2024 16:25
@pawellytaev
Copy link
Contributor

Tests are running through but I guess this is due to the low test coverage of PF2pp converter. we need to discuss before merging

@pawellytaev pawellytaev marked this pull request as draft July 8, 2024 06:49
@pawellytaev pawellytaev changed the title Alex dev PF2pp accleration with create_buses Jul 8, 2024
Copy link
Collaborator

@KS-HTK KS-HTK left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Also this PR is missing a changelog entry.

"""
Adds additonal atributes from powerfactory such as sernum or for_name

@param item: powerfactory item
Copy link
Collaborator

@KS-HTK KS-HTK Nov 24, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

it would be appreciated if the docstrings are kept in the google style. I know pandapower already uses multiple different styles, but we would prefer new code only uses one type of docstring style.

"""
<descripton>

[long description]

Attributes:
  <arg_name> ([type]): <description>
Optional:
  <arg_name> ([type]): <description>
  
Returns: # or Yields:
  <type>: <description>

Raises:
  <type>: <description>

Example:
  >>> [code]
"""

types are generally useful but better typed in the function definition and not only in the docstring. When typing is used the docstring can use the types from python.

for i in range(num_nodes):
try:
pf_bus = item.GetNode(i)
# wenn elmlodlvp, dann bus von elmlodlv parent
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

comments and variable names should be kept in English only.

params = ADict()
if pf_variable_p_loads == 'm:P:bus1' and not item.HasResults(0):
raise RuntimeError('load %s does not have results and is ignored' % item.loc_name)
raise RuntimeError('load %s does not have results and is ignored' % item.loc_name)
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

why add whitespaces at end of line?

split_dict[section] = split_dict.get(section, []).append(load)

else:
else:#ö.
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

why this comment?

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This change should have been its own pull request. See #2809

@KS-HTK KS-HTK requested review from fmarten99 and removed request for rbolgaryn November 24, 2025 13:06
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

question Further information is requested stale No furter development for more than six month

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants