Step-up transformer tap changer support: binary search control logic #894
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: Jerry Guo <Jerry.Jinfeng.Guo@alliander.com>
…eature/tap-changer-control-logic-binary-search
8 tasks
…eature/tap-changer-control-logic-binary-search
…eature/tap-changer-control-logic-binary-search
…eature/tap-changer-control-logic-binary-search
…eature/tap-changer-control-logic-binary-search
…eature/tap-changer-control-logic-binary-search
…eature/tap-changer-control-logic-binary-search
Signed-off-by: Jerry Guo <Jerry.Jinfeng.Guo@alliander.com>
mgovers
reviewed
Feb 17, 2025
| @@ -719,7 +722,7 @@ class TapPositionOptimizerImpl<std::tuple<TransformerTypes...>, StateCalculator, | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| void propose_new_pos(bool strategy_max, bool above_range) { | |||
| bool const is_down = above_range == tap_reverse_; | |||
| bool const is_down = (above_range == tap_reverse_) ^ control_at_tap_side_; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
please use != instead of bitwise XOR for boolean values.
Rationale: the exact implementation of bool is not not specified in the C/C++ standard. As a result, bitwise operations on bools are undefined behavior.
Example: if you have a bool variable represented by an int8_t and its binary representation is 00000001 another bool with a binary representation 00000010, then their boolean values are both 1. The boolean XOR should therefore be 0. However, the bitwise XOR is 00000011, which represents 1, not 0.
| @@ -777,25 +781,27 @@ class TapPositionOptimizerImpl<std::tuple<TransformerTypes...>, StateCalculator, | |||
| } | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| IntS search(bool prefer_higher = true) const { | |||
| IntS search(bool prefer_higher_) const { | |||
| // This logic is used to determin which of the middle points could be of interest | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| // This logic is used to determin which of the middle points could be of interest | |
| // This logic is used to determine which of the middle points could be of interest |
| // This logic is used to determin which of the middle points could be of interest | ||
| // given strategy used in optimization: | ||
| // Since in BinarySearch we insist on absolute upper and lower bounds, we only need to | ||
| // find the corresponding mid point. std::midpoint returns always the lower mid point | ||
| // if the range is of even length. This is why we need to adjust bounds accordingly. | ||
| // Not because upper bound and lower bound might be reversed, which is not possible. | ||
| bool const prefer_higher = control_at_tap_side_ ? !prefer_higher_ : prefer_higher_; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
optional different implementation:
Suggested change
| bool const prefer_higher = control_at_tap_side_ ? !prefer_higher_ : prefer_higher_; | |
| bool const prefer_higher = control_at_tap_side_ != prefer_higher_; |
Comment on lines
+791
to
793
| bool const prefer_higher = control_at_tap_side_ ? !prefer_higher_ : prefer_higher_; | ||
| auto const primary_bound = prefer_higher ? upper_bound_ : lower_bound_; | ||
| auto const secondary_bound = prefer_higher ? lower_bound_ : upper_bound_; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this logic was originally introduced to swap upper and lower bound. Maybe it's a good idea to make the control_at_tap_side the new default, e.g.
Suggested change
| bool const prefer_higher = control_at_tap_side_ ? !prefer_higher_ : prefer_higher_; | |
| auto const primary_bound = prefer_higher ? upper_bound_ : lower_bound_; | |
| auto const secondary_bound = prefer_higher ? lower_bound_ : upper_bound_; | |
| bool const prefer_lower = control_at_tap_side_ == prefer_higher_; | |
| auto const primary_bound = prefer_lower ? lower_bound_ : upper_bound_ ; | |
| auto const secondary_bound = prefer_lower ? upper_bound_ : lower_bound_ ; |
or otherwise explicitly mention
Suggested change
| bool const prefer_higher = control_at_tap_side_ ? !prefer_higher_ : prefer_higher_; | |
| auto const primary_bound = prefer_higher ? upper_bound_ : lower_bound_; | |
| auto const secondary_bound = prefer_higher ? lower_bound_ : upper_bound_; | |
| bool const inverted_bounds = control_at_tap_side_ != prefer_higher_; | |
| auto const primary_bound = inverted_bounds ? upper_bound_ : lower_bound_; | |
| auto const secondary_bound = inverted_bounds ? lower_bound_ : upper_bound_; |
| bool last_check_{false}; // last run checked | ||
| bool tap_reverse_{false}; // tap range normal or reversed | ||
| bool inevitable_run_{false}; // inevitable run | ||
| bool control_at_tap_side_{false}; // regulator control side is at tap side |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
rather than control_at_tap_side, maybe you can combine this with the logic surrounding tap_reverse?
|
linux build fails |
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.
Updated control logic for binary search