-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 294
Resubmitting pull request for new state definition FpTPxpc with testing #1723
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
…nding the property
…se test. Uses a FeedFlash unit model rather than a state block to perform the test
…ant config properties dictionary and file
…nstraint' based on `has_phase_equilibrium` boolean. Also additional conditional in blocking the activiation of the `equilibrium_constraint` if `mole_frac_phase_comp` is a state variable
…changes to a future potential feature
…nges were not passing tests and the changes are not necessary for anything. Maybe a potential future feature
…nges were not passing tests and the changes are not necessary for anything. Maybe a potential future feature
…s-pse into tanner/FpTPxpc
Codecov Report❌ Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #1723 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 73.63% 73.67% +0.03%
==========================================
Files 394 395 +1
Lines 64980 65145 +165
Branches 10947 10969 +22
==========================================
+ Hits 47851 47993 +142
- Misses 14627 14642 +15
- Partials 2502 2510 +8 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
dallan-keylogic
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Just a few minor comments.
| # | ||
| # m = model.fs.state[0] | ||
| # | ||
| # m.display() | ||
| # # | ||
| # # for v in m.component_data_objects(Var, active=True): | ||
| # # print(f"{v.name}: value={v.value}, lb={v.lb}, ub={v.ub}") | ||
| # # | ||
| # # print() | ||
| # # | ||
| # # for c in m.component_data_objects(Constraint, active=True): | ||
| # # print(c.name, c.expr) | ||
| # | ||
| # # As the phase equilibrium constraints were not solved, we expect these to have a large residual | ||
| # large_res = large_residuals_set(model.fs.state[0]) | ||
| # print(large_res) | ||
| # assert len(large_res) == 4 | ||
| # for i in large_res: | ||
| # assert i.name in [ | ||
| # "fs.state[0.0].phase_fraction_constraint[Liq]", | ||
| # "fs.state[0.0].phase_fraction_constraint[Vap]", | ||
| # "fs.state[0.0].equilibrium_constraint[Vap,Liq,H2O]", | ||
| # "fs.state[0.0].equilibrium_constraint[Vap,Liq,CO2]", | ||
| # ] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What's happening with this commented code?
| print() | ||
| print(j) | ||
| print(value(m.fs.state[1].flow_mol_phase_comp_apparent["Liq", j])) | ||
| print(value(m.fs.state[1].flow_mol), value(m.fs.state[1].mole_frac_comp[j])) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We shouldn't have print statements in the final test.
|
@tannerpolley , could you get to this PR soon? |
|
@tannerpolley (and/or @agarciadiego )will you be able to get to this for the Feb (this month's) release? |
New State Definition FpTPxpc which has
flow_mol_phaseandmole_frac_phase_compas the state definitions with required testing