Hi TSC members,

The LF Energy asks me to have a roadmap for 2020 with the main features for PowSyBl organization. Please take a few minutes to complete the following file:

https://github.com/powsybl/.github/blob/master/ROADMAP.md

You can also send me an e-mail with the roadmap elements.

I also have to present in the next TAC (Technical Advisory Council, next Tuesday) our main goals. As an example, one of our goals is to have a CIM-CGMES based workflow that can import IGMs, merge them, make some modifications and export the updated European network in one or several CIM-CGMES files.

Thanks a lot.

Anne.

Hi,

What was the initial issue? If it was to be able to generate old IIDM data for out dated applications (so not supporting last IIDM standard) it won’t work at all as XIIDM will be different/incompatible and not loadable.

Geoffroy

De : powsybl-tsc@... [mailto:powsybl-tsc@...] De la part de RALAMBOTIANA Miora via Lists.Lfenergy.Org
Envoyé : vendredi 10 janvier 2020 11:17
À : powsybl-tsc@...
Objet : Re: [powsybl-tsc] IIDM Versionning - questions

Hi,

Rather than throwing an exception when trying to serialize an IIDM network in a uncompatible previous version, it has been proposed to use network's extensions to serialize it as accurately as possible and keep new information in extensions (compatible with the previous version). I am not really sure about this workaround, what do you think?

Miora

Hi,

It makes sense to me but I am not sure everything is ready on extension side  to support this kind of “critical” extension.

I am thinking in particular about the lack of adder support with extensions, the lack of API/impl decoupling.

Sure it is already the case  today, adding extension data is not as clear as base data for the previous reason

(like gen.addExtension(MyExt.class, new MyExt(gen,  … lots of param …), but I think before moving base data to extension we should rework on extension modelling in IIDM API.

We could get inspiration on how builder have been added in AFS keeping a good API/impl design.

Geoffroy

De : powsybl-tsc@... [mailto:powsybl-tsc@...] De la part de RALAMBOTIANA Miora via Lists.Lfenergy.Org
Envoyé : vendredi 10 janvier 2020 11:12
À : powsybl-tsc@...
Objet : [powsybl-tsc] [IIDM] Regulations modelization

Hi all,

We were thinking yesterday with Mathieu of modeling new regulation (shunt's regulation particularly) as extensions rather than attributes (by boolean attribute regulating, double attribute voltageSetpoint, etc.) from now on.

The pros were the following:

• It would allow to harmonize regulations for equipment that regulates similarly
• Regulations are not always mandatory during simulations (e.g. simple loadflows) where the point of IIDM core modeling was to be used in all kind of simulations

Eventually, we would also change existing regulation attributes to model them as extensions as well.
What do you think? Do you agree?

Miora

Hi all,

1)      Unfortunately I think the use case is important.

If we don’t have this feature, if one application provides IIDM data to other applications and if that first application wants to use new features of powsybl (and hence a new IIDM format), it will have to wait for all client applications to have migrated to that version of powsybl and deployed a new version.

This may have strong impacts on deployment schedules in our IT systems, and does not seem acceptable.

2)      About the proposal, I am OK with most of it, but I would propose to relax the requirements on new attributes:

if a new attribute is not required by the version 1, I think in most cases it should not throw when serializing to that version, even if the attribute is required in version 2.

Maybe this should be decided on a case-by-case basis : for some new attributes, the network will still make sense without them, maybe with some adaptation (like transferring it to an older attributes), while for others it will not.

Best regards,

Sylvain

De : powsybl-tsc@... [mailto:powsybl-tsc@...] De la part de MURGEY Sebastien via Lists.Lfenergy.Org
Envoyé : mercredi 20 novembre 2019 09:11
À : powsybl-tsc@...
Objet : Re: [powsybl-tsc] IIDM Versionning - questions

I think there are organisational ways to solve this type of issues. However, I understand the use case shared.
It also largely depends on the rythm of breaking changes creation in IIDM. If every two months we have to align ourselves on our releases because of IIDM XML export breaking changes, this issue will be far more important than if it is only once a year...