Skip to content

Alternative templater review#4

Open
nick-gorman wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
templater-review-2
Open

Alternative templater review#4
nick-gorman wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
templater-review-2

Conversation

@nick-gorman
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

An alternative proposal for revising the templater output.

The key difference in this proposal is to use a unified geographical unit, a node, to represent both subregions and rezs.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
- Generator unique naming — currently `{technology}_{isp_code}_{node_id}`, would become `{technology}_{resource_type}_{node_id}`
- Translator VRE build limit constraint groups (`_VRE_BUILD_LIMIT_CUSTOM_CONSTRAINT_GROUPS` in `mappings.py`) — filters generators by `isp_resource_type` values; must be updated to match new names

**Note:** This canonicalization is **optional**. The current ISP codes (`WH`, `WM`, `SAT`, etc.) are concise and unambiguous. Retaining them avoids changes to the translator's constraint configuration and generator naming. The trade-off is readability: `wind_high` is more self-documenting than `WH` for new users of the schema. Either approach is acceptable — the key requirement is consistency between `assets_new_generators.resource_type` and `node_resource_limits.resource_type`.
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think at the moment the WH, WM etc codes are also used to map to generator traces - though this can definitely be handled easily so not a drama. I'll keep thinking about this one, I'm pretty pro making things more readable and removing caps feels nice on the eyes too

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.

2 participants