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

address all-zero time-dependent value removal bug (closes #722) #734

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

fneum
Copy link
Member

@fneum fneum commented Sep 14, 2023

Still have to check how much it affects file size.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Sep 14, 2023

Codecov Report

Patch coverage: 100.00% and project coverage change: -0.04% ⚠️

Comparison is base (fd30d88) 77.92% compared to head (432ad72) 77.88%.
Report is 2 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #734      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   77.92%   77.88%   -0.04%     
==========================================
  Files          26       26              
  Lines        6795     6793       -2     
  Branches     1479     1478       -1     
==========================================
- Hits         5295     5291       -4     
- Misses       1182     1185       +3     
+ Partials      318      317       -1     
Files Changed Coverage Δ
pypsa/io.py 89.71% <100.00%> (-0.39%) ⬇️

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@coroa
Copy link
Member

coroa commented Sep 17, 2023

Fixes #722

@coroa
Copy link
Member

coroa commented Sep 17, 2023

I agree this makes sense for the netcdf representation, where there is compression (which is now enabled by default), but there are other exporters like to csv where this has a big impact (not only in storage space, but also in file space, which incidentally is also where this branch was originally implemented and included into the exporter/importer infrastructure).

Yes the interaction with optional attributes like p{n} was not considered at the time (since that came later), but you should still test out the drawbacks of including everything clearly.

(Moved here from issue)

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.

None yet

2 participants