Support having multiple active operational limits group#1345
Merged
SylvestreSakti merged 25 commits intomainfrom Mar 24, 2026
Merged
Support having multiple active operational limits group#1345SylvestreSakti merged 25 commits intomainfrom
SylvestreSakti merged 25 commits intomainfrom
Conversation
Signed-off-by: PRABAKARAN Sylvestre <sylvestre.prabakaran@rte-france.com>
Signed-off-by: PRABAKARAN Sylvestre <sylvestre.prabakaran@rte-france.com>
Signed-off-by: PRABAKARAN Sylvestre <sylvestre.prabakaran@rte-france.com>
Signed-off-by: PRABAKARAN Sylvestre <sylvestre.prabakaran@rte-france.com>
NathanDissoubray
previously approved these changes
Feb 27, 2026
NathanDissoubray
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Seems good to me appart from a little question on the order of the limits 👍
Have you taken a look at powsybl/powsybl-core#3756 ? I don't think this impacts OLF, but I prefer making sure
Signed-off-by: PRABAKARAN Sylvestre <sylvestre.prabakaran@rte-france.com>
Signed-off-by: Olivier Perrin <olivier.perrin@rte-france.com>
…(powsybl-core 3670) (#1375) Signed-off-by: Olivier Perrin <olivier.perrin@rte-france.com>
Signed-off-by: Damien Jeandemange <damien.jeandemange@artelys.com>
Signed-off-by: Sylvestre Prabakaran <sylvestre.prabakaran@rte-france.com>
Signed-off-by: Sylvestre Prabakaran <sylvestre.prabakaran@rte-france.com>
Signed-off-by: Sylvestre Prabakaran <sylvestre.prabakaran@rte-france.com>
Signed-off-by: Sylvestre Prabakaran <sylvestre.prabakaran@rte-france.com>
Signed-off-by: Sylvestre Prabakaran <sylvestre.prabakaran@rte-france.com>
Signed-off-by: Sylvestre Prabakaran <sylvestre.prabakaran@rte-france.com>
Signed-off-by: Sylvestre Prabakaran <sylvestre.prabakaran@rte-france.com>
Signed-off-by: Sylvestre Prabakaran <sylvestre.prabakaran@rte-france.com>
Signed-off-by: Sylvestre Prabakaran <sylvestre.prabakaran@rte-france.com>
Signed-off-by: Sylvestre Prabakaran <sylvestre.prabakaran@rte-france.com>
jeandemanged
approved these changes
Mar 23, 2026
NathanDissoubray
approved these changes
Mar 23, 2026
NathanDissoubray
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Seems good to me. Some of the things you had to implement should've been made on core instead, we'll see what we can do regarding that !
|
This file contains hidden or 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
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?
Closes #1356
What kind of change does this PR introduce?
powsybl-core PR powsybl/powsybl-core#3735 will introduce multiple operational limits groups. This current PR aims at supporting this new functionnality.
What is the current behavior?
Only one operational limits group can be selected
What is the new behavior (if this is a feature change)?
Multiple operational limits group can be selected. A new class LfLimitsGroup (which only contains a list of LfLimit objects) has been introduced to avoid using nested lists.
The operationalLimitsGroupId is added to the LimitViolations that are in the result
Does this PR introduce a breaking change or deprecate an API?
If yes, please check if the following requirements are fulfilled
What changes might users need to make in their application due to this PR? (migration steps)
For custom open-loadflow implementation using LfNetwork, the LfBranch API has been modified :
getLimits1()andgetLimits2()return now aList<LfLimitsGroup>instead of aList<LfLimit>Other information: