Add nodeBreakerView.hasAttachedEquipment(node) method + Ensure an IIDM node number is valid before trying to use it in CGMES conversion #1233
Conversation
cgmes/cgmes-conversion/src/main/java/com/powsybl/cgmes/conversion/elements/NodeConversion.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
cgmes/cgmes-conversion/src/main/java/com/powsybl/cgmes/conversion/elements/NodeConversion.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
| private boolean iidmNodeIsValid(VoltageLevel.NodeBreakerView topo, int iidmNode) { | ||
| // A node is valid only if it has some equipment attached | ||
| // The list of valid nodes is obtained from the node-breaker view | ||
| // We assume the returned list is sorted |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not sure we should assume that, or we should update the documentation.
Anyway, is it the best way to check if a terminal is associated to this node: maybe we should add a convenient method to get an Optional<Terminal> from a node?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It is not enough because a node is still valid if an internal connection or a switch is attached to it (with no terminal)... I added a convenient method to check if there is any equipment attached to the node at NodeBreakerView level to delete this method.
|
You can now use the method |
miovd
force-pushed
the
cgmes_conversion_ensure_valid_iidm_node
branch
from
78e566a
to
adea281
Compare
miovd
added
IIDM
PR: corrected
PR: waiting-for-review
and removed
PR: waiting-for-info-general
labels
|
@zamarrenolm I changed your PR following fixes in VoltageLevel API, do you agree with this correction? |
| .setName(vlName) | ||
| .setNominalV(nominalVoltage) | ||
| .setTopologyKind(context.nodeBreaker() ? TopologyKind.NODE_BREAKER : TopologyKind.BUS_BREAKER) | ||
| .add(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@zamarrenolm you should configure your IDE to set to 8 spaces the continuous indentation.
Signed-off-by: Luma Zamarreño <zamarrenolm@aia.es>
…entations Signed-off-by: RALAMBOTIANA MIORA <miora.ralambotiana@rte-france.com>
Signed-off-by: RALAMBOTIANA MIORA <miora.ralambotiana@rte-france.com>
Signed-off-by: RALAMBOTIANA MIORA <miora.ralambotiana@rte-france.com>
miovd
force-pushed
the
cgmes_conversion_ensure_valid_iidm_node
branch
from
07155b5
to
9ea56a5
Compare
Totally agree. I have checked it with the test case that was giving me problems. |
miovd
added
PR: ready-to-be-merged
and removed
PR: corrected
PR: waiting-for-review
labels
miovd
changed the title
miovd
changed the title
|
SonarCloud Quality Gate failed.
|
Signed-off-by: Luma Zamarreño zamarrenolm@aia.es
Please check if the PR fulfills these requirements (please use
'[x]'to check the checkboxes, or submit the PR and then click the checkboxes)What kind of change does this PR introduce? (Bug fix, feature, docs update, ...)
Bug fix for conversion of isolated connectivity nodes in CGMES.
What is the current behavior? (You can also link to an open issue here)
CGMES data contains an isolated connectivity node (no terminals attached to it, no related equipment).
Space for the connectivity node is reserved at IIDM node-breaker graph (a vertex is reserved).
During the conversion, the reserved vertex is never used (no equipment is attached to it).
After all equipment has been converted, voltages and angles from SV are put on the resulting IIDM data.
The CGMES SV data contains voltage and angle values for the connectivity node.
But the corresponding node in IIDM node-breaker graph is not valid.
An exception is raised.
What is the new behavior (if this is a feature change)?
Before trying to use the node from IIDM node-breaker graph, it is verified that the node number is valid.
To do it, we check that the nodes returned by the node-breaker view in IIDM contain the node number reserved.
There is no severe performance penalty on adding the check. It has been tested on a network with more than 14000 values for voltages. Without the check, all voltages and angles were set in 1400 ms. After adding the check, the cost is 1600 ms.