Skip to content
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

Report per phase measurements for correct phase #154

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: dev
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

sthelen-enqs
Copy link
Contributor

If/when a device registers PhaseSpecific measurements only for one specific phase (or registers them for all phases but only provides measurements for one of them), MeasurementPhaseSpecificDataForFilter() returns a []float64 containing only 1 value with no way for the API user to know for which phase the measurement was meant. This is an issue in e.g. ma/mpc's PowerPerPhase which would then return an array with less than 3 members and callers would then not know to which phase the measurement corresponds.

This PR changes the return type of MeasurementPhaseSpecificDataForFilter to always contain one entry per phase so that for a device which only reports data on phase B, it would return []float64{0, 10, 0} instead of []float64{10}. The advantage of this approach is that it doesn't change the return type of MeasurementPhaseSpecificDataForFilter or any of its callers, the downside is that callers can't (easily) distinguish devices that are reporting 0 for a phase and devices that aren't reporting a phase at all. The alternative would be to change the return type from []float64 to map[ElectricalConnectionPhaseNameType]float64 and then going through all the callers to make them use/return that as well.

I'm not particular to either approach so I picked the one that changed the surface API less.

@sthelen-enqs
Copy link
Contributor Author

After a discussion, we'll rewrite this to return the map[ElectricalConnectionPhaseNameType]float64 to be more explicit about whether phases were written to or not.

@andig
Copy link

andig commented Feb 14, 2025

Another and easier to use option might be a [3]*float.

@DerAndereAndi DerAndereAndi added this to the Version 0.8 milestone Feb 21, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants