Skip to content

Remove network results and violation detection on disabled branches on one side in fast DC Security Analysis #1213

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

Conversation

p-arvy
Copy link
Member

@p-arvy p-arvy commented Mar 27, 2025

Please check if the PR fulfills these requirements

  • The commit message follows our guidelines
  • Tests for the changes have been added (for bug fixes / features)
  • Docs have been added / updated (for bug fixes / features)
  • A PR or issue has been opened in all impacted repositories (if any)

Does this PR already have an issue describing the problem?

No.

What kind of change does this PR introduce?

This PR aims to remove network results and limit violation detection in the fast DC SA, for branches that have been disabled on one side due to a contingency.

What is the current behavior?

Currently, if branches are disabled only on one side (for example, in the case of a contingency on a busbar section), the fast DC SA will compute network results and may detect limit violations on these branches.

This behavior differs from the slow DC SA, as the latter uses a listener to replace ClosedBranchSide1/2DcFlowEquationTerm with EvaluableConstants.ZERO when one side of the line is disabled. As a result, branch results are set to 0 on both sides, and no limits are violated (although they are still analyzed).

What is the new behavior (if this is a feature change)?
In fast DC SA, a customized filter is now applied before computing the network results or checking for limit violations. This filter is inspired by the work done in PR #1169.

A branch where one side is disabled by a contingency is considered disabled, meaning no computation or verification is performed on these branches. This differs from the slow DC SA (see the previous paragraph), where the filter simply checks whether the branches have been disabled on both sides by the contingency.

Does this PR introduce a breaking change or deprecate an API?

  • Yes
  • No

If yes, please check if the following requirements are fulfilled

  • The Breaking Change or Deprecated label has been added
  • The migration steps are described in the following section

What changes might users need to make in their application due to this PR? (migration steps)

Other information:

p-arvy added 3 commits March 27, 2025 18:00
Signed-off-by: p-arvy <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: p-arvy <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: p-arvy <[email protected]>
@p-arvy p-arvy changed the title Fix detection of violations on disabled branches in Fast DC Security Analysis [WIP] Fix detection of violations on disabled branches in Fast DC Security Analysis Mar 27, 2025
@p-arvy p-arvy changed the title [WIP] Fix detection of violations on disabled branches in Fast DC Security Analysis [WIP] Remove network results and violation detection on disabled branches on one side in fast DC Security Analysis Mar 28, 2025
Signed-off-by: p-arvy <[email protected]>
@p-arvy p-arvy changed the title [WIP] Remove network results and violation detection on disabled branches on one side in fast DC Security Analysis Remove network results and violation detection on disabled branches on one side in fast DC Security Analysis Mar 28, 2025
@p-arvy p-arvy self-assigned this Mar 28, 2025
@p-arvy p-arvy added the bug Something isn't working label Mar 28, 2025
Hadrien-Godard
Hadrien-Godard previously approved these changes Apr 2, 2025
@p-arvy p-arvy requested a review from vidaldid-rte April 2, 2025 14:05
vidaldid-rte
vidaldid-rte previously approved these changes Apr 3, 2025
Copy link
Collaborator

@vidaldid-rte vidaldid-rte left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Just one minor remark about a comment (about sorting) that should be in the code to explain the purpose and importance of sorting.

p-arvy added 3 commits April 3, 2025 18:14
Signed-off-by: p-arvy <[email protected]>
…isabled-elements-in-fast-dc-sa' into fix-detection-of-violations-on-disabled-elements-in-fast-dc-sa
@p-arvy p-arvy dismissed stale reviews from vidaldid-rte and Hadrien-Godard via f4665ff April 3, 2025 16:39
@vidaldid-rte vidaldid-rte merged commit 48605db into main Apr 4, 2025
8 checks passed
@vidaldid-rte vidaldid-rte deleted the fix-detection-of-violations-on-disabled-elements-in-fast-dc-sa branch April 4, 2025 08:04
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug Something isn't working
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants