Updated docs and README.md

NEWS.md

@@ -1,5 +1,10 @@
 # Release notes
 
+## Version 0.1.1 (2025-12-16)
+
+* Minor updates to `README.md` and the documentation.
+* Removal of data compliance of `TransmissionMode` due to the changes from [`EnergyModelsBase` v0.9.1](https://github.com/EnergyModelsX/EnergyModelsBase.jl/releases/tag/v0.9.1) and the corresponding adjustment in [`EnergyModelsGeography` v0.11.3](https://github.com/EnergyModelsX/EnergyModelsGeography.jl/releases/tag/v0.11.3).
+
 ## Version 0.1.0 (2025-03-27)
 
 Initial version of the package:

Project.toml

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 name = "EnergyModelsCompliance"
 uuid = "a12c78df-351d-47be-9a81-17a33aab13b1"
 authors = ["Julian Straus <Julian.Straus@sintef.no>"]
-version = "0.1.0"
+version = "0.1.1"
 
 [deps]
 EnergyModelsBase = "5d7e687e-f956-46f3-9045-6f5a5fd49f50"

README.md

@@ -14,13 +14,9 @@ While it can be used as a first step for checking new elements, thorough tests o
 The usage of the package is best illustrated through the commented [`examples`](examples).
 The examples showcase how the functions from `EnergyModelsCompliance` can be utilized to identify whether your newly developed element can be incorporated in `EnergyModelsBase` or `EnergyModelsGeography` models.
 
-> [!WARNING]
-> The package is not yet registered.
-> It is hence necessary to first clone the package and manually add the package to the example environment through:
->
-> ```julia
-> ] dev ..
-> ```
+> [!IMPORTANT]
+> The reimplementation of the `ExtensionData` in [`EnergyModelsBase` v0.9.1](https://github.com/EnergyModelsX/EnergyModelsBase.jl/releases/tag/v0.9.1) and the corresponding adjustment in [`EnergyModelsGeography` v0.11.3](https://github.com/EnergyModelsX/EnergyModelsGeography.jl/releases/tag/v0.11.3) resulted in problems for checking the function `mode_data`.
+> The check is hence deactivated while we consider how to do properly assess it in `EnergyModelsBase` and `EnergyModelsGeography`.
 
 ## Cite
 

docs/src/index.md

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 # EnergyModelsCompliance
 
 `EnergyModelsCompliance` is a utility package for the `EnergyModelsX` framework focusing on providing the user with functionality to check whether newly developed element descriptions are complying with the framework.
-These functions are included for both [`EnergyModelsBase`](https://energymodelsx.github.io/EnergyModelsBase.jl/stable/) and [`EnergyModelsGeography`](https://energymodelsx.github.io/EnergyModelsGeography.jl/stable/)
+These functions are included for both [`EnergyModelsBase`](https://energymodelsx.github.io/EnergyModelsBase.jl/stable/) and [`EnergyModelsGeography`](https://energymodelsx.github.io/EnergyModelsGeography.jl/stable/).
 
 It should be utilized for obtaining an overview of potential problems, but **not** as substitution for rigorous testing.
 

docs/src/manual/quick-start.md

@@ -8,7 +8,3 @@
 >    ] add TimeStruct
 >    ] add EnergyModelsCompliance
 >    ```
-
-!!! note
-    If you receive the error that `EnergyModelsCompliance` is not yet registered, you have to add the package using the GitHub repositories through `] add https://github.com/EnergyModelsX/EnergyModelsCompliance.jl`.
-    Once the package is registered, this is not required.

docs/src/manual/use.md

@@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ In this case, the model would not construct.
 However, if a developer provide new methods for their developed node, it is possible to ignore the warnings.
 An example is given by the function [`opex_fixed`](@extref EnergyModelsBase.opex_fixed).
 This function is only called in the function [`constraints_opex_fixed`](@extref EnergyModelsBase.constraints_opex_fixed).
-Hence, if you do not use the function, you can ignore the warning
+Hence, if you do not use the function, you can ignore the warning.
 
 ### [Test case](@id man-use-concepts-test)
 
@@ -37,6 +37,20 @@ It should be used for identifying whether the developed element results in a tri
 The function creates a minimum working example given an instance of the element, a simple time structure, and the `warn_log` from the function [`compliance_element`](@ref).
 It then tests whether the new element is utilized.
 
+!!! note "Tested values"
+    The utilization is tested by the variable `:cap_use` of the connected `Node`s and a corresponding utilization value of the new `Node` or `TransmissionMode`.
+    It must be above 0.1 in at least one of the time periods for all connected `Node`s.
+    The tests for the node itself are:
+    - `:cap_use` of the developed `Node` is larger than 0.1 at least once.
+    - `:stor_level` of the developed `Storage` is larger than 0.1 at least once.
+      `:stor_charge_use` an/or `stor_discharge_use` must also be above 0.1 at least once depending on whether the `Storage` node has input or output.
+    - `:trans_in` and `:trans_out` of the developed `TransmissionMode` is larger than 0.1 at least once.
+
+    You must adjust your test case that they are working with these test values.
+
+    This is also explained in the respective docstrings [`test_case(n::Source, 𝒯::TimeStructure, warn; co2::ResourceEmit = ResourceEmit("CO₂", 1.0))`](@ref) and [`test_case(tm::TransmissionMode, 𝒯::TimeStructure, warn; co2::ResourceEmit = ResourceEmit("CO₂", 1.0))`](@ref).
+.
+
 There are however a few important caveats when using the function for `Node`s.
 
 1. If your node includes CO₂ capture or process emissions, you **must** specify the keyword argument `co2` with your CO₂ instance.
@@ -51,7 +65,7 @@ There are however a few important caveats when using the function for `Node`s.
 
 !!! warning "Rigorous testing"
     The developed function should only be used for identifying major problems with new elements.
-    It does **not** provide a rigerous test for the new element.
+    It does **not** provide a rigorous test for the new element.
     This is especially relevant for the mathematical formulation, as we cannot include automated tests for unknown mathematical formulations.
     It is hence necessary that you test your element further with changes in the input representing your specific element.
 

ext/EMGExt/compliance_ele.jl

@@ -20,6 +20,10 @@ the indivdiual test functions. The called test functions are dependent on the ch
     - [`compliance_con_rate`](@ref) for [`PipeMode`](@extref EnergyModelsGeography.PipeMode), and
     - [`compliance_bidirectional`](@ref).
 
+    !!! warning
+        [`EMC.compliance_data`](@ref) is in the current stage removed due to changes to the
+        handling of `ExtensionData`.
+
 !!! note "Areas"
     The following function is called:
 
@@ -36,7 +40,8 @@ function EMC.compliance_element(tm::TransmissionMode)
     warn_opex_fixed = has_opex(tm) ? EMC.compliance_opex_fixed(tm) : false
     err_in, warn_in = EMC.compliance_inputs(tm)
     err_out, warn_out = EMC.compliance_outputs(tm)
-    warn_data = EMC.compliance_data(tm)
+    # warn_data = EMC.compliance_data(tm)
+    warn_data = false
 
     warn_loss = compliance_loss(tm)
     warn_con_rate = compliance_con_rate(tm)

test/test_emb_mwe.jl

@@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ end
         Dict(power => 1, co2 => 1), # Output from the node with output ratio
         # Line above: co2 is required as output for variable definition, but the
         # value does not matter
-        [CaptureEnergyEmissions(0.9)],  # Additonal data for emissions and CO₂ capture
+        [CaptureEnergyEmissions(0.9)],  # Additional data for emissions and CO₂ capture
     )
     err_log, warn_log = compliance_element(node);
     𝒯 = TwoLevel(1,1,SimpleTimes(10,1))

test/test_emg_access_fun.jl

@@ -102,13 +102,13 @@ end
     disable_logging(Error), (@test EMC.compliance_outputs(mode)[1]), disable_logging(Debug)
     Base.delete_method(@which outputs(mode))
 
-    # Test the data warning
-    msg = "The function `mode_data(tm)` is not working for the mode type `TestMode`.\n" *
-        "If you do not use the default functions `create_mode` and `investment_data` " *
-        "(when using `EnergyModelsInvestments`),\n" *
-        "you can ignore this warning."
-    @test_logs (:warn, msg) EMC.compliance_data(mode)
-    disable_logging(Warn), (@test EMC.compliance_data(mode)), disable_logging(Debug)
+    # # Test the data warning
+    # msg = "The function `mode_data(tm)` is not working for the mode type `TestMode`.\n" *
+    #     "If you do not use the default functions `create_mode` and `investment_data` " *
+    #     "(when using `EnergyModelsInvestments`),\n" *
+    #     "you can ignore this warning."
+    # @test_logs (:warn, msg) EMC.compliance_data(mode)
+    # disable_logging(Warn), (@test EMC.compliance_data(mode)), disable_logging(Debug)
 
     # Test the loss warnings
     msg = "The function `loss(tm)` is not working for the mode type " *

test/test_emg_element.jl

@@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ end
     @test all(err_log == (inputs=true, outputs=true, bidirectional=true))
     @test all(
         warn_log == (capacity=true, opex_var=true, opex_fixed=true,
-            inputs=false, outputs=false, loss=true, consumption_rate=false, data=true)
+            inputs=false, outputs=false, loss=true, consumption_rate=false, data=false)
     )
     EMB.outputs(tm::TestMode) = [ResourceCarrier("test", 0.0)]
     EMG.loss(tm::TestMode) = FixedProfile(10)
@@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ end
     @test all(err_log == (inputs=true, outputs=false, bidirectional=true))
     @test all(
         warn_log == (capacity=true, opex_var=true, opex_fixed=true,
-            inputs=false, outputs=false, loss=false, consumption_rate=false, data=true)
+            inputs=false, outputs=false, loss=false, consumption_rate=false, data=false)
     )
     Base.delete_method(@which outputs(mode))
     Base.delete_method(@which loss(mode))