Step-up transformer tap changer support: additional tests

[figueroa1395]

Add missing tests and refactor inappropriate ones for (#826):

• Add validation test case for transformer control side on the HV side. This test is marked as failing.
• Add validation test case for a step up transformer. This test is marked as failing.
• Add new test grid, as a unit test, for transformer ranking that works with the new logic.

[Jerry-Jinfeng-Guo]

Could you update the naming etc as per agreement? https://power-grid-model.readthedocs.io/en/stable/contribution/CONTRIBUTING.html#pull-request-process

[figueroa1395]

Could you update the naming etc as per agreement? https://power-grid-model.readthedocs.io/en/stable/contribution/CONTRIBUTING.html#pull-request-process

Thanks for the reminder, I had forgotten. Fixed accordingly.

[nitbharambe]

AKI's use case was this way:

source -- (HV)transformer(MV) -- (MV)transformer(higher MV with tap and control side) -- load

Can you also create a case? Such that source are at other place than control and tap_side?

[Jerry-Jinfeng-Guo]

• The step-up-transformer-single should not live under tests/data/power_flow/ directly, instead, the content should be arranged like all other cases in tests/data/power_flow/automatic_tap_regulator and have step-up-transformer-single prefixing all cases
• Could you explain to me how is the validation case in the input json files constructed? You put the control side at the other side, but you still have high voltage at from side

[figueroa1395]

• The step-up-transformer-single should not live under tests/data/power_flow/ directly, instead, the content should be arranged like all other cases in tests/data/power_flow/automatic_tap_regulator and have step-up-transformer-single prefixing all cases

Okay, addressed. In addition, given your other question, I have renamed those test with the prefix trafo-control-side-HV. The prefix step-up-transformer will be used in the remaining test (work in progress).

• Could you explain to me how is the validation case in the input json files constructed? You put the control side at the other side, but you still have high voltage at from side

To my understanding, previously it was forbidden to have the control side on the HV side, however, with the change of logic, it can now be positioned at the LV side. Hence, the current validation cases try to reflect this. On the contrary, this validation case doesn't reflect the specific edge case that AKI ran into, pointed out by you and @nitbharambe as well.

For this reason, I am working in an additional validation case, which will include not only the control side at the HV (relative) side, but also away from the source. These set of tests are to be prefixed step-up-transformer.

Until I add the missing validation test, I am putting back this PR into draft.

[nitbharambe]

Great work!

[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

Changes have been addressed.