Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

StorageUnit correct efficiency_dispatch/store (counter-proposal 2) #202

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Dec 3, 2020

Conversation

fneum
Copy link
Member

@fneum fneum commented Oct 16, 2020

counter proposal 2 for #182

Checklist

  • I tested my contribution locally and it seems to work fine.
  • [ ] Code and workflow changes are sufficiently documented.
  • [ ] Newly introduced dependencies are added to environment.yaml and environment.docs.yaml.
  • [ ] Changes in configuration options are added in all of config.default.yaml, config.tutorial.yaml, and test/config.test1.yaml.
  • [ ] Changes in configuration options are also documented in doc/configtables/*.csv and line references are adjusted in doc/configuration.rst and doc/tutorial.rst.
  • A note for the release notes doc/release_notes.rst is amended in the format of previous release notes.

@fneum
Copy link
Member Author

fneum commented Oct 16, 2020

Also see other counter proposal at #201.

@pz-max
Copy link
Collaborator

pz-max commented Nov 4, 2020

Thanks for correcting my proposal #182 (found the mistake now through your proposal, thanks 👍).
I like the brilliant use of the lookup_store/dispatch function in this proposal (#202) and hence prefer this version.
Further, with the lookup function the code seems more compact and comprehensible.

@fneum fneum requested a review from FabianHofmann November 26, 2020 16:24
@fneum fneum added this to the Release v0.3 milestone Dec 1, 2020
@fneum fneum merged commit f18b7b0 into master Dec 3, 2020
@fneum fneum deleted the fix-agg-efficiency-counter branch December 3, 2020 09:02
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.

3 participants