Doc: add category for loadflow parameters

[alicecaron]

Please check if the PR fulfills these requirements

• The commit message follows our guidelines
• Tests for the changes have been added (for bug fixes / features)
• Docs have been added / updated (for bug fixes / features)
• A PR or issue has been opened in all impacted repositories (if any)

Does this PR already have an issue describing the problem?

No.

What kind of change does this PR introduce?

Add documentation, classify loadflow parameters in categories to clarify parameter usages. It is purely indicationnal, no real categories are created within the code.

Does this PR introduce a breaking change or deprecate an API?

• Yes
• No

If yes, please check if the following requirements are fulfilled

• The Breaking Change or Deprecated label has been added
• The migration steps are described in the following section

What changes might users need to make in their application due to this PR? (migration steps)

Other information:

[alicecaron]

Related to the open loadflow documentation modification also to be coherent olf#1470 with the lf parameter categories

[colineplqt]

One remark. I guess you have ordered the sections alphabetically but I think it's a bit odd in the documentation to start with DC and debug which are not the main parameters that people would be interested in I am guessing.

I would suggest more something like that:

Model
Voltage Initialization
DC
HVDC
Voltage Control
Shunt Voltage Control
Phase Control
Transformer Voltage Control
Slack Distribution
Performance
Debug

or maybe following the steps of the load flow?

[alicecaron]

One remark. I guess you have ordered the sections alphabetically but I think it's a bit odd in the documentation to start with DC and debug which are not the main parameters that people would be interested in I am guessing.

I would suggest more something like that:

Model Voltage Initialization DC HVDC Voltage Control Shunt Voltage Control Phase Control Transformer Voltage Control Slack Distribution Performance Debug

or maybe following the steps of the load flow?

I agree it could have more sense to order the section with a more user centered interest order.

This was indeed alphabetically done to be coherent with the logs that are displayed when running the loadflow.

So if we change this in the documentation maybe we also need to change the sorting for the category displaying in open loadflow (in OpenLoadFlowParameters::log the only known public implementation for now).

What do you think @SylvestreSakti ?

[SylvestreSakti]

One remark. I guess you have ordered the sections alphabetically but I think it's a bit odd in the documentation to start with DC and debug which are not the main parameters that people would be interested in I am guessing.
I would suggest more something like that:
Model Voltage Initialization DC HVDC Voltage Control Shunt Voltage Control Phase Control Transformer Voltage Control Slack Distribution Performance Debug
or maybe following the steps of the load flow?

I agree it could have more sense to order the section with a more user centered interest order.

This was indeed alphabetically done to be coherent with the logs that are displayed when running the loadflow.

So if we change this in the documentation maybe we also need to change the sorting for the category displaying in open loadflow (in OpenLoadFlowParameters::log the only known public implementation for now).

What do you think @SylvestreSakti ?

Hello, I agree with Coline on the order of the categories. For the documentation, it seems more necessary than for the logs so no need to change the parameters logging I thing

[alicecaron]

One remark. I guess you have ordered the sections alphabetically but I think it's a bit odd in the documentation to start with DC and debug which are not the main parameters that people would be interested in I am guessing.

I would suggest more something like that:

Model Voltage Initialization DC HVDC Voltage Control Shunt Voltage Control Phase Control Transformer Voltage Control Slack Distribution Performance Debug

or maybe following the steps of the load flow?

done!

[colineplqt]

Thank you!

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud