New hydro remix algorithm #2532
Conversation
| BOOST_CHECK(new_H == expected_H); | ||
| BOOST_CHECK(new_D == expected_D); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
J'ai l'impression que ce test est très similaire au test précédent.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
oui, en effet, la seule chose qui change, c'est la Pmax qui est maintenant de 50 (au lieu de 40).
D'ou le titre de ce 2eme test
| std::vector<double> expected_D = {20., 30., 40., 50., 60.}; | ||
| BOOST_CHECK(new_H == expected_H); | ||
| BOOST_CHECK(new_D == expected_D); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Lui aussi ressemble beaucoup au précédent
There was a problem hiding this comment.
oui, ce test est le symétrique du test hydro_increases_and_pmax_40mwh___H_is_flattened_to_mean_H_20mwh
C'est pour montrer que l'algo est lui-même symétrique
…acity on remix hydro algorithm
…tial level too low
…fluence on algorithm
| int find_min_index(const std::vector<double>& G_plus_H, | ||
| const std::vector<double>& new_D, | ||
| const std::vector<double>& new_H, | ||
| const std::vector<int>& tried_creux, |
| const std::vector<int>& tried_creux, | ||
| const std::vector<double>& P_max, | ||
| const std::vector<bool>& filter_hours_remix, | ||
| double top) |
| static bool isLessThan(const std::vector<double>& a, const std::vector<double>& b) | ||
| { | ||
| std::vector<double> a_minus_b; | ||
| std::ranges::transform(a, b, std::back_inserter(a_minus_b), std::minus<double>()); | ||
| return std::ranges::all_of(a_minus_b, [](const double& e) { return e <= 0.; }); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| static bool isLessThan(const std::vector<double>& v, const double c) | ||
| { | ||
| return std::ranges::all_of(v, [&c](const double& e) { return e <= c; }); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| static bool isGreaterThan(const std::vector<double>& v, const double c) | ||
| { | ||
| return std::ranges::all_of(v, [&c](const double& e) { return e >= c; }); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Use operator overloading, I wrote this example
| static void checkInputCorrectness(const std::vector<double>& G, | ||
| const std::vector<double>& H, | ||
| const std::vector<double>& D, | ||
| const std::vector<double>& levels, | ||
| const std::vector<double>& P_max, | ||
| const std::vector<double>& P_min, | ||
| double initial_level, | ||
| double capacity, | ||
| const std::vector<double>& inflows, | ||
| const std::vector<double>& overflow, | ||
| const std::vector<double>& pump, | ||
| const std::vector<double>& S, | ||
| const std::vector<double>& DTG_MRG) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
- I don't really agree with having this function
static, it might be public to ease testing - Please avoid single character variable names
There was a problem hiding this comment.
- If this function was a method of a class, it would be private.
Question is : do we expose it to the outside world ?
Well literature says : people should test classes / objects behaviors, not their methods, and especially their private methods (see here for instance). We can't make every private methods public just to test them. So here, we test how the algorithm reacts to incorrect input data. - I do agree
| S.size(), | ||
| DTG_MRG.size()}; | ||
|
|
||
| if (std::ranges::adjacent_find(sizes, std::not_equal_to()) != sizes.end()) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Check all sizes against 1st one
| if (std::ranges::adjacent_find(sizes, std::not_equal_to()) != sizes.end()) | |
| if (!std::ranges::all_of(sizes, [&](std::size_t s){ s == sizes.front();}) |
|
No description provided.