Wrong year in function name: ghi_from_poa_driesse_2023

[adriesse]

Describe the bug
The function name has the year 2023 in it because that's when the paper was finalized, but the paper was officially published January 1, 2024.

Potential fix
Rename the function from ghi_from_poa_driesse_2023 to ghi_from_poa_driesse_2024.
Would be a breaking change and also require a small change in example.

Is it worth it? It probably annoys me more than anyone else, but it does have the potential to confuse others.

[echedey-ls]

Is the year important?

[adriesse]

Is the year important?

The year is not intrinsically important. It's only that that inconsistency could be a source of confusion.

[echedey-ls]

I mean, if we are going to rename the function (I agree with that) we could go with ghi_from_poa_driesse. To me, the year subtly suggests the existence of similar alternatives - like for the airmass models.

[adriesse]

Ah, I see what you mean. I put the year there in anticipation of publishing a better one. This was just a proof of concept (or teaser).

[echedey-ls]

I'm okay with either renaming

[cwhanse]

I'm okay with either renaming

As am I.

[adriesse]

If this is an easy routine edit for someone, please feel free to do it. I would have to reread my github notes and review how deprecations are done before I even start. On the other hand there is no urgency.

[RDaxini]

I can open a PR for this later today if that helps.

@adriesse what is your preference? I lean towards dropping the year unless there's a 100% plan for a new model, but either dropping or renaming is fine IMO. We can just go with whatever you prefer.

---

Aside:
Note we also have pvlib.ivtools.sdm.fit_pvsyst_iec61853_sandia_2025. I could see the year helping if there were multiple versions published over time, but that does not seem to be the case for this function. Is there any context I am missing for why the year is there?

Also in terms of distinguishing between versions/models: do we have a rule on when names are necessary? I think it's helpful for distinction when there are multiple models to do the same thing, but otherwise probably not. Not necessarily suggesting to drop the name suffix here---if Anton prefers to keep it, I reckon that's fine---but I figured I'd ask here in part just for my own understanding. Is it more like a source reference inside the function name?