Skip to content

Fix reported ignored target V and perform inconsistent target V checks#1362

Open
sharyalZ wants to merge 1 commit intomainfrom
update_reported_gen_inconsistent_target_v_handling
Open

Fix reported ignored target V and perform inconsistent target V checks#1362
sharyalZ wants to merge 1 commit intomainfrom
update_reported_gen_inconsistent_target_v_handling

Conversation

@sharyalZ
Copy link
Member

@sharyalZ sharyalZ commented Mar 3, 2026

Please check if the PR fulfills these requirements

  • The commit message follows our guidelines
  • Tests for the changes have been added (for bug fixes / features)
  • Docs have been added / updated (for bug fixes / features)
  • A PR or issue has been opened in all impacted repositories (if any)

Does this PR already have an issue describing the problem?

No.

What kind of change does this PR introduce?

A bugfix and a modification in selected generator target V reporting logic.

What is the current behavior?

At the moment, when two generators are connected to different buses but regulating on the same bus, then the target voltage of the rejected (second) controller bus is reported as kept here. The GeneratorVoltageControl contains the earlier set target voltage value, which is logged as ignored here. Furthermore, in this unit test, 413 is expected as the target voltage value, whereas in the report 413.0 is reported as ignored.

Also, in the checkAndCreateVoltageControl method, unique target voltage check is never done if there are incosistent controlled buses. However, it is possible that a subset of the generators connected at the same bus is performing regulation at the same bus but with different target voltages. The information regarding which target voltage is kept is not logged at the moment.

What is the new behavior (if this is a feature change)?

  • Fixed incorrect reporting of ignored target voltage when generator voltage controls are updated during the creation of the LfNetwork.
  • Fixed logging of inconsistent target voltage.

Does this PR introduce a breaking change or deprecate an API?

  • Yes
  • No

If yes, please check if the following requirements are fulfilled

  • The Breaking Change or Deprecated label has been added
  • The migration steps are described in the following section

What changes might users need to make in their application due to this PR? (migration steps)

Other information:

Signed-off-by: Sharyal Zafar <sharyal.zafar@artelys.com>
@sonarqubecloud
Copy link

sonarqubecloud bot commented Mar 3, 2026

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.

1 participant