unsettable fields in voltage level filter modification #92
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Mathieu DEHARBE <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Mathieu DEHARBE <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Mathieu DEHARBE <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Mathieu DEHARBE <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Mathieu DEHARBE <[email protected]>
| } | ||
| case TRANSIENT_REACTANCE -> modifyGeneratorShortCircuitAttributes( | ||
| new AttributeModification<>(Double.parseDouble(newValue), OperationType.SET), | ||
| new AttributeModification<>(newValue != null ? Double.parseDouble(newValue) : Double.NaN, OperationType.SET), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe you should use Unset instead ? And change AttributeModification behavior for double to return NaN
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It sounds like a good idea but it quickly gets complicated and dangerous for one week before the MVP si I prefer not to.
| .withStepUpTransformerX(stepUpTransformerX.getValue()) | ||
| .add(); | ||
| if (Double.isNaN(directTransX.getValue()) && Double.isNaN(stepUpTransformerX.getValue())) { | ||
| generator.removeExtension(GeneratorShortCircuit.class); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
you should not remove extension because extension contains 2 values, remove extension only if 2 values are empty. You should only remove the concerned value. And also check if the extension is present, as when it is not present this will produce an exception.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I removed the possibility to remove transient reactance (because it is impossible). So that part has been removed : aa8b2ca
| directTransXNewValue = NO_VALUE; | ||
| stepUpTransformerXNewValue = NO_VALUE; | ||
| } else { | ||
| generator.newExtension(GeneratorShortCircuitAdder.class) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It is now impossible to remove an extension through filter modification : aa8b2ca
Signed-off-by: Mathieu DEHARBE <[email protected]>
|
No description provided.