Skip to content
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

feat: easier steady-state vs transient period selection #2359

Open
wpbonelli opened this issue Nov 6, 2024 · 0 comments
Open

feat: easier steady-state vs transient period selection #2359

wpbonelli opened this issue Nov 6, 2024 · 0 comments

Comments

@wpbonelli
Copy link
Member

We should think about some way to simplify the selection of steady state and transient stress periods. This is relevant to e.g. the storage package

Originally posted by @mjr-deltares in #2352 (comment)

Hey @jlarsen-usgs , I looked at the failing test and realized I was having similar issues. The storage package is created with:

        ... 
        steady_state={0: True, 1: False},
        transient={0: False, 1: True},
    )

which the splitter can't process into something valid. Reducing it to:


    steady_state={0: True},
    transient={1 : True},
)

works as intended.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant