Collect pieces for SSP 2024/ScenarioMIP

[khaeru]

This PR is to track the working branch ssp-dev, which exists to help with work on the SSP 2024/ScenarioMIP project by collecting or pointing to all the code that is actually used to execute the workflow.

The goal is to be complete and up-to-date as possible for that purpose; other aspects (code quality, cleanliness, or readiness for main) are less important.

How to use

• Per Collect pieces for SSP 2024/ScenarioMIP workflows #234, it is not necessary to use this branch. If you can make an atomic PR for individual, small changes, do that first. This branch will be regularly rebased on latest main, so will include those updates.
• Update this branch, e.g. by cherry-picking commits or copying code from various other working branches used for this project.
• Make a PR that targets into this branch, and then request that someone review it. Continue work on this branch, rather than the PR source branch.

How to review

TBD: this PR may not eventually be merged.

PR checklist

• Continuous integration checks all ✅ TBD if this will be required.
• Add or expand tests; coverage checks both ✅
• Add, expand, or update documentation.
• Update doc/whatsnew.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 0% with 191 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 60.9%. Comparing base (0645fd5) to head (1a26e6c).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...essage_ix_models/project/ssp/script/util/shares.py	0.0%	100 Missing ⚠️
...age_ix_models/project/ssp/script/util/functions.py	0.0%	91 Missing ⚠️

❗ There is a different number of reports uploaded between BASE (0645fd5) and HEAD (1a26e6c). Click for more details.

HEAD has 78 uploads less than BASE

Flag	BASE (0645fd5)	HEAD (1a26e6c)
	87	9

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff            @@
##            main    #235      +/-   ##
========================================
- Coverage   76.5%   60.9%   -15.6%     
========================================
  Files        203     205       +2     
  Lines      15546   15737     +191     
========================================
- Hits       11896    9597    -2299     
- Misses      3650    6140    +2490     

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
...age_ix_models/project/ssp/script/util/functions.py	0.0% <0.0%> (ø)
...essage_ix_models/project/ssp/script/util/shares.py	0.0% <0.0%> (ø)

... and 53 files with indirect coverage changes

[khaeru]

@GamzeUnlu95 @macflo8 —there now appears to be a conflict in a particular materials data file. I think this is the same one modified in #247 (FYI also @glatterf42 who reviewed there).

Can you please say whether these two changes to the file are perhaps the same, or different? Does one supersede the other, or are they parallel/non-overlapping?

This will allow to rebase and update the branch, which we need to do (urgently) in order for it to be usable in the ScenarioMIP process.

[khaeru]

Can you please say whether these two changes to the file are perhaps the same, or different? Does one supersede the other, or are they parallel/non-overlapping?

The reply (in Slack) was that the changes in #247 supersede the ones that were on this branch.
Accordingly, I did:

• git switch ssp-dev && git pull --rebase update my local copy of the branch.
• git rebase -i main initiate interactive rebase.
• Chose edit for the commit with subject "Move co2_trans_disp parametrization to file" —the only commit on this branch that modified the file.
• Removed the changes to that file from the commit:

  git restore --staged message_ix_models/data/material/steel/Global_steel_MESSAGE.xlsx 
  git restore message_ix_models/data/material/steel/Global_steel_MESSAGE.xlsx 
  

• git rebase --continue
• git push --force

[khaeru]

@measrainsey @ywpratama I think there is probably an issue to be resolved here.

• In the earlier-merged commits on this branch, an additional column low_medium was added to this table, leading to 6 total columns with numeric values.
• In parallel, the 3 rows for dac_lt etc. were added with only 5 numeric values.
• Thus for instance the value 0.5 appears to be in the low_medium column, when the DAC-related commit added them to a medium column, and so on for the rest of the row.

I was able to deconflict the branch history, but the latter rows probably also need values (or NaNs) for low_medium inserted so that the entered values appear in the right place.

Please let me know if that's unclear or if you need help making the adjustment.

[measrainsey]

gotcha! @ywpratama could you add low_medium values for the DAC technologies? since i wouldn't know the assumptions to make here