Classes to compute active/reactive power loads of the Coil Power Supply System

[tplobo]

Linked Issues

Closes #3017.

Description

Interface Changes

Checklist

I confirm that I have completed the following checks:

• Tests run locally and pass pytest tests --reactor
• Code quality checks run locally and pass pre-commit run --from-ref develop --to-ref HEAD
• Documentation built locally and checked sphinx-build -W documentation/source documentation/build

[je-cook]

None of this is needed please remove, its over complicating things again

Suggested change

	subclass_name = "CoilSupplyParameter"
	single_value_types = (bool, int, float, list, tuple, np.ndarray)
	@classmethod
	def validate_parameter(cls, obj):
	"""
	Validate 'obj' to be of the same class as the object testing it.
	Substitute method for 'isinstance', since it fails in this
	implementation.
	"""
	return obj.__class__.__name__ == cls.__name__
	@classmethod
	def init_subclass(cls, argument: Any = None):
	"""
	Create a 'CoilSupplyParameter' subclass instance from argument.
	If 'None' is given to instantiate the class, an empty instance
	is created.
	If an object of this class is given to instantiate the class, it
	is returned as is.
	If a 'dict' is given to instantiate the class, keys must match
	class attributes and their values are distributed.
	If a value of one of the 'single_value_types' classes is given
	to instantiate the class, copy that value to all attributes.
	"""
	if argument is None:
	return cls()
	if cls.validate_parameter(argument):
	return argument
	if isinstance(argument, dict):
	return cls(**argument)
	if isinstance(argument, cls.single_value_types):
	args = {}
	all_fields = fields(cls)
	for one_field in all_fields:
	args[one_field.name] = argument
	return cls(**args)
	raise ValueError(
	"A 'CoilSupplyParameter' instance must be initialized "
	f"with 'None' for an empty instance, a '{cls.__name__}' "
	"instance for no alteration, a 'dict' for a distributed "
	"instantiation or any of the following types for a "
	f"single-value instantiation: {cls.single_value_types}. "
	f"Argument was '{type(argument)}' instead."
	)

[tplobo]

Hi @je-cook,

this one is a bit more complicated than that... I have made a "dataclass factory" to create dataclasses to store vectors for a CoilSupplySystem object. This ensures the dataclass has one vector for each coil defined in the CoilSupplySystem. These methods are not so much for validation, but rather automatized creation of these containers. I call the related methods "validation" but they are used to instantiate the container objects independent of the input so maybe the term is not the most appropriate.

In short, the workflow is as follows:

1. a CoilSupplyInputs object is initialized, with a certain list of coils in config.coil_names
2. this automatically specifies what fields the container dataclass must have, so a CoilSupplyParameter class is defined as child of CoilSupplyParameterABC, and stored in the parameter attribute of CoilSupplyInputs
3. a CoilSupplySystem object is initialized with the CoilSupplyInputs object, so all methods that need to create a container can do it easily, either empty (full of None values) or passing an object to validate_parameter... dictionaries are distributed in the dataclass, other objects are just copied.

Perhaps that's not the best way to do this, but this was meant to be discussed with you and @oliverfunk

Let me know what you think,

[je-cook]

stop validating

Suggested change

	if self.validate_parameter(other):
	other_value = getattr(other, one_field.name)

[sonarcloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
23 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
No data about Coverage
1.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarCloud

[tplobo]

@je-cook, I assume this one should also be rebased on feature/powercycle, instead of develop... what is the argument for --onto in this case? I don't understand what should be the equivalent one for powercycle_coils

[sonarcloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
31 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
No data about Coverage
0.9% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarCloud

[je-cook]

@tplobo can this be rebase on top of feature/powercycle please? It a bit impossible to review at the moment

[sonarcloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
12 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarCloud

[tplobo]

once you've pulled the most recent commit on feature/powercycle this is command. You branched at 1db075f git rebase --onto feature/powercycle 1db075f6

EDIT looks like there is a modified commit compared to the feature branch so 2 things before the above:

git rebase --interactive HEAD~59

edit line 2 save and exit

before pick e929c15c Powercycle layout base (#2873) after pick 1db075f6 Powercycle layout base (#2873)

@je-cook, I have followed your instructions, but as I mentioned I had to make some corrections while interactively merging due to some conflicts; I've run my tests but you might encounter a bug or another. I have also added the IDM files used in verification as ignored files in a local .gitignore; let me know if we should change approach that to something else. Also, is it necessary to run a filter-repo to remove the previous files, or can we leave it as is?
Finally, to complete the tests I have also had to modify match_domains because one of the last numpy updates broke it. Thanks for the help and let me know if you need any support during review.