Fix SA Exception not same number of equations and variables #1321
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Signed-off-by: Damien Jeandemange <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: PRABAKARAN Sylvestre <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: PRABAKARAN Sylvestre <[email protected]>
|
jeandemanged
changed the title
vidaldid-rte
approved these changes
Jan 2, 2026
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Please check if the PR fulfills these requirements
Does this PR already have an issue describing the problem?
No
What kind of change does this PR introduce?
Bug fix
What is the current behavior?
For a contingency isolating a bus with:
we get a PowsyblException: Expected to have same number of equations and variables
This didn't occur before #1275, so this looks like a regression.
It seems the BUS_V variable remains active for the isolated bus.
What is the new behavior (if this is a feature change)?
No more exception
Does this PR introduce a breaking change or deprecate an API?
Other information: