-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
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
Strange results when using GDX Reference #26
Comments
@Antti-L I am a bit unsure whether this should have been opened in the TIMES repository instead? |
@olejandro, I imported the model in the current version of Veda and the data in the range you mentioned appeared OK in browse even in the original version of that file. Do you get a different reading behaviour after moving those parameters to a new table? |
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
@akanudia I looked at the original file, and I see |
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
I am using this Veda version. There is some difference between the tech data shown in browse. For the model version that experiences the issue, |
@Antti-L , sorry for the confusion. I just pulled the main branch without realizing that it had a different version of that file. The file that Olex had pointed to would certainly have "commodity_group" as the CG for AFC. |
Sorry for being slow (once again), but I cannot see any commodity_group specified for the AFC in that file. Do you mean literally 'commodity_group', i.e. leading to a domain violation? |
@Antti-L, I meant text "commodity_group", which would lead to domain violation. I have corrected my original message too. |
@akanudia, as far as I could see no "commodity_group" text was added, so no domain violation was generated. |
@olejandro, can you please what was there in the commodity_group index then? |
Nothing, as far as I could see in Browse. The attribute is just not displayed. |
OK, thanks for pointing this out. I see some inconsitency in the way missing informaiton is handled in FI_T and TFM tables. We will streamline this in the next update. |
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
Thanks @akanudia. Any kind of feedback would definitely be helpful in a case like this. Even better if it is consistent between FI_T and TFM tables. It seems that this issue occurs due to a missing FIXBOH setting in the run file. This should not have anything to do with the input table, right? As far as I can see, the setting is stored correctly in cases.json... |
Correct, nothing to do with Excel files. FIXBOH is defined in the GDX references part of the case definition form. |
What could it be then? I was able to reproduce the issue several times and each time I would check that GDX reference is specified in the form and the year to fix solution up to is chosen... |
@olejandro let us do a web meeting to understand this problem. |
I've had a very strange experience when using GDX Rerence with this model version. Basically, when running
Mitigation_CB
the objective function doubles compared toNo_Mitigation
(i.e. GDX reference until 2022) and some results in the fixed periods appear to be missing (e.g. for commodityELCC
).It seems that this can be traced to missing indexes for attributes of 4 technologies specified in this file, range
Processes!X67:AD70
. No error was thrown and no entries appear to be present inQA_CHECK.LOG
regarding these.The issue is gone when the input for those 4 technologies is corrected in this version.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: