[WIP] Add a parameter to force targetQ within reactive limits #1154
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Signed-off-by: Didier Vidal <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: PRABAKARAN Sylvestre <[email protected]>
|
Thank you for this PR, I added a small doc paragraph for the introduced parameter. |
|
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Please check if the PR fulfills these requirements
Does this PR already have an issue describing the problem?
No
What kind of change does this PR introduce?
In some situations group reactive limits are more trusted that group targetQ
This PR adds a parameter forceTargetQInReactiveLimits . When this parameter is set to true and a generator's targetQ is outside the limit, the targetQ is set to the nearest possible value in the PQ diagram.
What is the current behavior?
targetQ has more priority than reactive limits
What is the new behavior (if this is a feature change)?
By default, targetQ has more priority than reactive limits. But if you set the forceTargetQInReactiveLimits parameter to true, reactiveLimits have more priority than targetQ.
Does this PR introduce a breaking change or deprecate an API?