-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 19
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
Include scenario management #356
Conversation
@davide-f do you want me to review? |
That would be great! |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Do the run names of PyPSA-Earth and Earth-Sec have to be aligned? Or is just the PyPSA-Earth-Sec run name relevant at all? It would be great if you could elaborate a bit on that relation. Otherwise, great PR and looks all good to me! Have you tried running locally?
Snakefile
Outdated
CDIR = config["costs_dir"] | ||
|
||
config.update({"git_commit": get_last_commit_message(".")}) | ||
config.update({"submodule_commit": get_last_commit_message(PYPSAEARTH_FOLDER)}) | ||
|
||
RDIR_PE = run["name"] + "/" if run.get("name") else "" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Just for understanding: "PE" stands for PyPSA-Earth?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes. This implementation relies on defining the whole scenario name of pypsa-earth as the one of the -sec model.
Potentially, we could have a different option for that to avoid re-executing the power model for different scenarios of the same power model.
Not sure what is your feeling here
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Well yes it would be nice to have the option to not rerunning pypsa-earth for every new pypsa-earth-sec scenario indeed. Do you think it is much effort to consider it in this PR? It it is and it would delay the Merge, then we postpone the option to not run pypsa-earth for every new scenario. By the way, isn't there an option called "disable_subworkflow" which disables pypsa-earth? I assume this option would not work anymore in this PR?
@energyLS @hazemakhalek |
Closes # (if applicable).
Changes proposed in this Pull Request
Checklist
envs/environment.yaml
andenvs/environment.docs.yaml
.config.default.yaml
,config.tutorial.yaml
, andtest/config.test1.yaml
.doc/configtables/*.csv
and line references are adjusted indoc/configuration.rst
anddoc/tutorial.rst
.doc/release_notes.rst
is amended in the format of previous release notes, including reference to the requested PR.