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

Fix bug with contingencies defined only in some periods/scenarios #46

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Jun 4, 2024

Conversation

rdzman
Copy link
Member

@rdzman rdzman commented May 22, 2024

@StefanoUnipd, could you have a look at this. I think it should fix #45.

…defined only in some periods/scenarios.

- Check all periods/scenarios for contab before turning off contingencies when most.security_constrainted = -1
- Remove requirement for mdi.cont(1,1).contab to be non-empty when most.security_constrained = 1
- Update most_summary() to skip display of non-existent contingencies.
@rdzman
Copy link
Member Author

rdzman commented May 29, 2024

@StefanoUnipd, were you able to test this? If it works for you, I'd like to go ahead and merge it.

@StefanoUnipd
Copy link

I apologize for the late reply. I tested the code using the example most_ex7_suc, in particular at the point where the Full Transition Probabilities + Contingencies is studied and everything works! Thank you very much for the changes Professor Zimmerman (and also for Appendix B! ).

@rdzman rdzman merged commit e05d571 into master Jun 4, 2024
8 checks passed
@rdzman rdzman deleted the bug_45 branch June 4, 2024 17:44
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.

Contingencies defined independently for some periods and scenarios
2 participants