Add TypeScript API documentation with typedoc

References

for #66 (just the typescript side of the house)

Code changes

adds typedoc with typedoc-plugin-markdown
coverts raw typedoc markdown into something more myst-compatible
generates a few intermediate pages for better structure
adds a few nasty directives to the pyolite worker to appease whatever typedoc needs
adds pytest-check-links to make sure we (or typedoc, or myst, or sphinx) don't break anything

runs in CI, adding about a minute to the end of the build

we could run a lot more things in parallel, e.g. doit -n4 build lint test docs check...

but then the logs become unreadable with everything interleaved

skips yarn install if .yarn-integrity exists to get cache benefits (back)
splits upgrading pip and requirements.txt to get cache benefits
skips the vercel deploy, as my PR builds don't have secrets.VERCEL_TOKEN
wraps first command in shutil which for #70

User-facing changes

typescript API docs (will eventually) appear on documentation site

Backwards-incompatible changes

n/a

Looks like something is not quite right w/r/t #68
Run amondnet/vercel-action@v20
/home/runner/work/_actions/amondnet/vercel-action/v20/dist/index.js:2205
        throw new Error(`Input required and not supplied: ${name}`);
        ^

Error: Input required and not supplied: vercel-token
    at Object.getInput (/home/runner/work/_actions/amondnet/vercel-action/v20/dist/index.js:2205:15)
    at Object.679 (/home/runner/work/_actions/amondnet/vercel-action/v20/dist/index.js:24158:26)
    at __webpack_require__ (/home/runner/work/_actions/amondnet/vercel-action/v20/dist/index.js:22:30)
    at startup (/home/runner/work/_actions/amondnet/vercel-action/v20/dist/index.js:37:19)
    at /home/runner/work/_actions/amondnet/vercel-action/v20/dist/index.js:41:18
    at Object.<anonymous> (/home/runner/work/_actions/amondnet/vercel-action/v20/dist/index.js:44:10)
    at Module._compile (internal/modules/cjs/loader.js:959:30)
    at Object.Module._extensions..js (internal/modules/cjs/loader.js:995:10)
    at Module.load (internal/modules/cjs/loader.js:815:32)
    at Function.Module._load (internal/modules/cjs/loader.js:727:14)

Yeah, tried some stuff... could be the vercel thing only works for stuff that comes from jtpio/jupyterlite, so might not be worth the secrets for non-main builds.

could be the vercel thing only works for stuff that comes from jtpio/jupyterlite, so might not be worth the secrets for non-main builds.

Ah, this might be related to the recent security changes to GitHub Workflow, that may prevent access to secrets from forks by default.

Ah, this might be related to the recent security changes to GitHub Workflow, that may prevent access to secrets from forks by default.

Or maybe just secrets not being available to forks. If that is becoming too annoying, we could then revert #68 and keep it in the Deployments docs only.

Yerp, the vercel thing was not happy even with the checkout.

gah, but reading your comment, i do need to put it back... we'll see how rtd does so i can bundle some more changes

huzzah, back to :heavy_check_mark:

Oh, and never be squeamish about squash merging my gross PRs!


ENH: scipy.signal - Cross Spectral Density and Coherence functions

I've modified/extended the existing code for scipy.signal.welch to compute cross spectral densities, and a small function to compute coherence. The underlying algorithm is essentially unchanged from the existing welch code.
Since PSDs are a subset of CSDs, I've replaced the welch function with a call to csd with the input repeated. On my machine this increases the run time for welch on the order of 2% (~10us on a 1024 element array, out of 500us on average). Is limiting the code's redundancy worth this performance hit?
In any case, I have not yet written any new tests for the CSD or coherence functions, but all of the current scipy.signal tests pass. The docstrings probably need some examples / additional information too.
I appreciate everyone's feedback!

From a quick glance this looks good. Adding tests and an example to each docstring would indeed be needed.
A 2% slowdown seems too small to worry about. Is it a fixed 2% (what do you get for a much larger input array)?

Thanks for the feedback! I'll be working on tests over the next few days, as time allows.
I compared performance on one hour of 16kHz data, and saw a 2% slowdown again (35.2 seconds vs  34.7).

I've written a few new tests for CSD and coherence. Also, seeing as there are many duplicate tests for periodogram and welch, even though periodogram is a call to welch in the end, I duplicated all of the welch tests for CSD. I presume this is useful if they ever become decoupled.
I'm new to writing tests, so I'm sure there are many test cases I've neglected, but I'm happy to add any that people come up with!

I found that PSD and CSD methods exist in matplotlib.mlab, and are much faster (~5 or 6x), as they use some nparray striding voodoo.
I still think that scipy should have these capabilities; it is ok to replicate the algorithms used there?

I don't see a reason not to liberally borrow from matplotlib.mlab if that has a faster algorithm. Agree that it does belong in scipy.signal.

I'm working on porting the matplotlib version, but it'll be a seperate PR, so I'll close this one. There a little more work to do to make sure the welch API stays consistent. The matplotlib version is much faster, but can't handle multidimensional arrays the way the current signal.welch can, so I'll be sure to implement that as well.

Sounds good, looking forward to the new PR!


generateproto not generating int fields

Hello and hope you're doing well!
I started using this and ran into a small issue. I created a model where I'm using an integer field for state with a list of choices.

However, any time I run python manage.py generateproto it creates the state field as a string in the proto file.

Is this intended behavior or a known issue? I've been working around it by generating proto files with python -m grpc_tools.protoc and manually updating the import statements, but it would be nice if the generateproto command could do this. If I'm missing anything, let me know and thanks in advance for the help!

Hi @scout-d
This is indeed not intended behavior, we're in the process of rewriting the proto generation code (#125) so this will be fixed in the new release
Thank you for your issue !


Data Tables - Move to the new proxy server based recorder

See https://github.com/azure/azure-sdk-for-js/issues/17994 for details

This is done now


Can't use multiple dimensions or metrics

The Analytics API allows the use of multiple dimensions and metrics in query, such as the following (tested with https://ga-dev-tools.appspot.com/query-explorer/):
metrics=ga:pageviews,ga:hits&dimensions=ga:browser,ga:deviceCategory&sort=-ga:hits
However it looks like gatoo assumes only 1 dimension and only 1 metric can be provided and when multiples are used throws an API error such as "Error: Invalid value 'ga:hits,ga:pageviews' for metric parameter." or "Error: Unknown dimension(s): ga:deviceCategory,ga:browser"

🙏 Sorry For the late reply, I did not get the notification so have not seen this issue 🙏
I will have a look on this and see if I can fix it over the next few weeks


It seems exits much noise on face in some images

Hi, thank you for your great work. When I test on many images, I found comes several  defect as follows：

It seems exits much noise on face in some images(zoom in)
orgin image:
invert image:

It seems sensitive to hair on the face:
origin image:

invert image:

Can you give me some advise to solve that?

Have you solved that? I strongly think that even if the output is set to 1024, actual output without distortion/noise artifacts will probably happen only for the size of 256x256 set as the output size as to get 1024 size there will be an interpolation, and that will give you all those errors.
After all, you see the pre-trained models specify a D size for the lightweight Hyperinverter of 128, and 256 for the large version.

Hi, thank you for your great work. When I test on many images, I found comes several defect as follows：

It seems exits much noise on face in some images(zoom in)
orgin image:
invert image:

It seems sensitive to hair on the face:
origin image:

invert image:

Can you give me some advise to solve that?


Added accessibilityType parameter to query when fetching all keychain it...

When app tryed to obtain accounts for service in background mode on blocked device, it got status '-25308' (User interaction is not allowed) despite the accounts had been saved with accessibilityType kSecAttrAccessibleAlways or kSecAttrAccessibleAfterFirstUnlock.
Adding accessibilityType parameter to query in fetchAll: method resolved this problem.

The accounts were saved within app group. I don't know whether this fact influenced or not.

I also has this problem "User interaction is not allowed,errorcode=-25308",


Created an interface to deal with Circuits

Circuits from different libraries need to be imported.
Made a CircuitDescriptor class to help with handling the circuit data in any form.
Also refactored stuff and made the tests work with lots of requirements fixed.
Closes #4

@obliviateandsurrender Let's merge this on review, we will fix the rest of the code later and increase the pylint threshold, plus add code and tests for the other stuff.

@AnimeshSinha1309 let me review the code once, and then add my stuff as soon as possible.


Duplicate icons when pinning in taskbar - Windows 10

Version: 1.18.0 ia32
This seems to be an ongoing problem, apparently fixed but it isn't. Ref to issue #7374

Thanks for opening a new issue @garygreen :+1:  Makes sense at this point since that issue was pretty stale and it's possible it's the same symptom with a different cause at this point - if it's not too much trouble, can you open a new issue with the issue template filled out?  That way folks can have a fresh start with all the information necessary to try and reproduce in the issue body.

Really?! I've kept this straight forward because this should be as much information as needed. Even attached a pretty gif, picture worth a thousand words and all. Anyway, I'll open another issue with the same details.

New issue created #14813


Use placeholders for java.lang.StackTraceElement

This class has different fields in different Java versions, so we can't use it for
serialization. Instead we now use a placeholder class and reconstruct the stack trace
elements upon deserialization.
Fixes #13957
Fixes #9339
Contributor Checklist

[x] Review Contribution Guidelines
[x] Make sure that all commits are signed off to indicate that you agree to the terms of Developer Certificate of Origin.
[x] Make sure all contributed code can be distributed under the terms of the Apache License 2.0, e.g. the code was written by yourself or the original code is licensed under a license compatible to Apache License 2.0.
[x] Check "Allow edit from maintainers" option in pull request so that additional changes can be pushed by Gradle team
[x] Provide integration tests (under <subproject>/src/integTest) to verify changes from a user perspective
[ ] Provide unit tests (under <subproject>/src/test) to verify logic
[ ] Update User Guide, DSL Reference, and Javadoc for public-facing changes
[x] Ensure that tests pass sanity check: ./gradlew sanityCheck
[x] Ensure that tests pass locally: ./gradlew <changed-subproject>:quickTest

Gradle Core Team Checklist

[ ] Verify design and implementation
[ ] Verify test coverage and CI build status
[ ] Verify documentation
[ ] Recognize contributor in release notes

@bot-gradle test and merge

Your PR is queued. See the queue page for details.

@bot-gradle test this

OK, I've already triggered ReadyForMerge build for you.

OK, I've already triggered a build for you.

OK, I've already triggered a build for you.

Pre-tested commit build failed.

@bot-gradle test and merge

Your PR is queued. See the queue page for details.

Your PR is queued. See the queue page for details.

OK, I've already triggered a build for you.


build(yarn): reset script now wipes node modules, yarn lock

Found myself in need of this when strange errors started occurring
between branch switches where the gRPC tooling was not installed
properly despite the configure script running successfully.
Now the reset is script is much more robust and it closer
resembles the outcome of a fresh clone.
Also: Ran the reset script and it updated the lock file, including
that in the commit as well to see if in the future othe reset runs
will also generate these/similar changes to the lock file or not.
Signed-off-by: Peter Somogyvari<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

Codecov Report

Merging #1343 (a658d42) into main (8a4222a) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #1343   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   67.95%   67.95%
=======================================
  Files         301      301
  Lines       10948    10948
  Branches     1347     1347
=======================================
  Hits         7440     7440
  Misses       2817     2817
  Partials      691      691

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 8a4222a...a658d42. Read the comment docs.


Can not access module settings

Describe the bug
Hello,
I want to update my version <IP_ADDRESS> of Prestashop in version <IP_ADDRESS>. To carry out my update, I installed the latest version of 1-Click Upgrade as requested by the Prestashop documentation.
Unfortunately, when I click on the button allowing me to go into the module settings, the following error message appears: "Fatal error: Uncaught Error: Call to undefined method AdminSelfUpgrade :: displayErrors () in / home / clients / 839385930dcd51377b6711bec9d0d0f8 / temp / adminlheuCN / functions.php: 281 Stack trace: # 0 /home/clients/839385930dcd51377b6711bec9d0d0f8/temp/adminlheuCN/functions.php(422): checkingTab ('AdminSelfUpgrad ...') # 1 / home / clients / 839385930dcd51377b6711bec9d0d0f8 / temp / classes / Dispatcher.php (347): runAdminTab ('AdminSelfUpgrad ...', false) # 2 /home/clients/839385930dcd51377b6711bec9d0d0f8/temp/adminlheuCN/index.php(58): DispatcherCore-> dispatch () # 3 {main} thrown in /home/clients/839385930dcd51377b6711bec9d0d0f8/temp/adminlheuCN/functions.php on line 281 "
Upgrade environment (please complete the following information):

Version you started from: <IP_ADDRESS>

Displayed log
I do not have access
Insert upgrade / rollback log here

**Expected behavior**
I would like you to tell me where the problem comes from and what I need to do to fix it.

**Screenshots**
![erreur-module-1-click-upgrade](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/49283787/55570387-a407be00-5703-11e9-9712-acf315429b87.jpg)

**Server (please complete the following information):**
 - Web Server: I don't know
 - PHP Version: [e.g. 7.0]
 - Module Version [e.g. 4.6.0]

**Additional context**
...

Hi there,
This error is triggered when the core tries to tell you that you cannot access the configuration page (You've not been granted access to its configuration page). While we fix the error, you should ask the shop administrator to give you access to the configuration page of the module.

This issue will be fixed on the next version thanks to #302


Implement _check

Hopefully, this goes to my branch.

Couldn't help noticing most of the few PR also have the 5 pending tests. Are these negligible and are something directly related to the setup of the codebase or is that something each and everyone of us has to make changes to. Tried having a go at it but got stuck pretty bad and couldn't get passed the pending test.

Hey @bellsofaba, everything so far has been an automated response. It's not equipped to handle questions such as these. Hopefully I can help you out though.
To get this PR merged, you'll have to pass all of the tests, even the pending ones.
To change the pending tests to active, you have to change describe.skip to describe in your test file.
Then run npm test from the command line. If there's any failing tests, update your code to make them pass again!
I hope this helps


ANN001 should not be fired if function param is a pytest fixture

@pytest.fixture
def tool_manager():
    return ToolManager()

def test_create_tool(tool_manager):
    do_something()

I believe in cases like this ANN001 should not be fired because we still don't have a fixture type annotation. what then should be the best way to deal with this, please?

Considering this example, I think the type of tool_manager would just be whatever the tool_manager fixture is returning which is ToolManager. So, in general you can provide the return type of the fixture as the argument type.

thanks @dhruvmanila ❤

Glad to be helpful. I hope that answers your question. I'll mark this as resolved but feel free to ask any other questions that you might have.


Vague error in callback phase of custom strategy

I don't know if the issue that I'm experiencing is within Omniauth or if it's something to do with the Polar API that I'm attempting to integrate with. Apologies ahead of time if I'm in the wrong place. Perhaps someone can at least point me in the right direction of how these kinds of errors are typically resolved.
Configuration

Provider Gem: WIP building my own for the Polar API https://www.polar.com/accesslink-api/?ruby#authentication
Ruby Version: 2.6.6
Framework: Rails <IP_ADDRESS>
Platform: Mac

Expected Behavior
It doesn't seem like much of anything should be happening during the callback phase
Actual Behavior
I receive the error {"error":"invalid_client"}. The full log is:
Started GET "/users/auth/polar/callback?state=STATE&code=CODE" for IP at 2020-04-19 11:56:52 -0400
I, [2020-04-19T11:56:52.656516 #19263]  INFO -- omniauth: (polar) Callback phase initiated.
E, [2020-04-19T11:56:53.425221 #19263] ERROR -- omniauth: (polar) Authentication failure! invalid_credentials: OAuth2::Error, invalid_client:
{"error":"invalid_client"}
Processing by OmniauthCallbacksController#failure as HTML
  Parameters: {"state"=>"STATE", "code"=>"CODE"}
Redirected to https://SITE.ngrok.io/users/sign_in

Steps to Reproduce
My strategy code is fairly simple so far.
require "omniauth-oauth2"

module OmniAuth
  module Strategies
    class Polar < OmniAuth::Strategies::OAuth2
      option :name, "polar"

      option :client_options, {
        site: "https://www.polaraccesslink.com",
        authorize_url: "https://flow.polar.com/oauth2/authorization",
        token_url: "https://polarremote.com/v2/oauth2/token"
      }
    end
  end
end

This is enabled in config/initializers/devise.rb by:
config.omniauth :polar,
  Rails.application.credentials[Rails.env.to_sym][:polar_client_id],
  Rails.application.credentials[Rails.env.to_sym][:polar_client_secret]

Ah 🤦 I found this explanation in https://www.polar.com/accesslink-api/?ruby#token-endpoint

invalid_client: Client authentication failed (e.g., unknown client, no client authentication included, or unsupported authentication method).

I attempted to make the token request completely external to my Rails app, and it returned the same invalid_client error. This doesn't appear to be anything I've done incorrectly with omniauth.


Empty cells not getting drawn often enough

When the world is nearly full of a very active cell (such as direction water) the random redraw rate does not reliably draw the remaining empty cells. This makes it look like there are floating phantom cells there. Non-active cells should be drawn more somehow!

This was improved


config migrate and EnvVars warnings

We encountered an issue with a customer who leverages a number of different environment variables to help them customize their different environments (DEV/STAGING/PRODUCTION, Primary Site versus Disaster Recovery Site).
LONG story short:

Customer was trying to update their SAML related certs and keys.
They typically ingest the new certs using our config migrate CLI command
During the course of another LONG story, the environment variables for the certs were changed to match the hard-coded file names we leverage when these certs are uploaded through the System Console (see this PR)
When we ran the config migrate command we were not seeing the new certs in the ConfigurationFiles table, and we were not seeing the active config in the Configurations table updated with the new file name.  This was a big head scratcher.
As it turns out, we were running the CLI config migrate with the full set of environment variables they use when running MM service.
From testing it looks like the config migrate was honouring those environment variables (which makes sense in hindsight, but was an issue for us at the time)

I'd like to add some clear callouts on this into our docs below:
https://docs.mattermost.com/administration/config-settings.html
https://docs.mattermost.com/administration/config-in-database.html

Thanks, @sadohert. I've added two suggestions but otherwise it looks good to me.


Support for raw images

This is a request for support for raw images, since they are lossless and should be preferentially used for quantification. If it is not possible to implement several formats, at least support for DNG would be welcomed.

Partly solved with the addition of image reading plugins 0.6. If a LibRaw plugin gets made, this basically gets solved.


Fix typo in 01-intro.md

This pull request corrects a simple typo in the intro. Thank you!

Thanks @NRJulian!


Inconsistent Color representation

This parsing
Color Color::fromString(const std::string & string, bool * ok)
{
    //[...]
    if (hexString.size() == 6)
        hexString = "FF" + hexString; // results in ARGB
    //[...]
}

is inconsitent with the following functions
unsigned int Color::rgba() const

Color::Color(int red, int green, int blue, int alpha)

Mhm, this corresponds to the way it is implemented in Qt.
http://doc.qt.io/qt-5/qcolor.html
http://doc.qt.io/qt-5/qcolor.html#rgba

I don't think that Qt parses Strings as ARGB and then only offers rgba() getter functions and that was what I was getting at.
The 2 functions on the bottom are totally fine, the fromString() method is the one with the weird behaviour.

Color::rgba() returns an unsigned int that somewhat looks like this alpha red green blue. This corresponds exactly to QColor::rgba() which returns an QRgb which is "An ARGB quadruplet on the format #AARRGGBB, equivalent to an unsigned int."
The Qt equivalent to Color::fromString() is QColor::setNamedColor() which also reads hex values as #AARRGGBB.


Fix timing for test "Wait Until Operator Reverts "Grafana" To "Prometheus" In Rhods-Monitor-Federation"

Increase waiting time up to 15 mins, so the tests doesn't fail sometimes
Signed-off-by: Jorge Garcia Oncins<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

Tested successfully here: https://opendatascience-jenkins-csb-rhods.apps.ocp-c1.prod.psi.redhat.com/job/rhods-ci-pr-test/1122
The value was reconciled 7 minutes after Wait Until Operator Reverts "Grafana" To "Prometheus" In Rhods-Monitor-Federationstarted (before it wait until 5 minutes)


Enable running of tests in tests/db_engine_specs

CATEGORY
Choose one

[x] Bug Fix
[ ] Enhancement (new features, refinement)
[ ] Refactor
[ ] Add tests
[ ] Build / Development Environment
[ ] Documentation

SUMMARY
Tests in tests/db_engine_specs are not currently running, due to nosetests requiring an __init__.py to recognize the folder as a module.
Before: Ran 504 tests in 124.049s (py36-sqlite)
After: Ran 619 tests in 121.567s (py36-sqlite)
Also includes a refactor and tests from https://github.com/apache/incubator-superset/pull/8733 in order to preserve cherry-picking.
BEFORE/AFTER SCREENSHOTS OR ANIMATED GIF

TEST PLAN
Ensure db_engine_specs tests are running locally and in CI.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

[ ] Has associated issue:
[ ] Changes UI
[ ] Requires DB Migration.
[ ] Confirm DB Migration upgrade and downgrade tested.
[ ] Introduces new feature or API
[ ] Removes existing feature or API

REVIEWERS
@willbarrett @craig-rueda @dpgaspar @villebro

Codecov Report

Merging #8902 into master will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #8902   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   58.97%   58.97%
=======================================
  Files         359      359
  Lines       11333    11333
  Branches     2787     2787
=======================================
  Hits         6684     6684
  Misses       4471     4471
  Partials      178      178

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 191aca1...f5ac6bf. Read the comment docs.

Ouch. That's no good! Good find, and thank you!


CrashPad

SteamDB app page links to a few games using this
https://steamdb.info/app/497860/
https://steamdb.info/app/704920/
https://steamdb.info/app/719640/
https://steamdb.info/app/791240/
https://steamdb.info/app/1174180/
https://steamdb.info/app/1255630/
https://steamdb.info/app/1275370/
https://steamdb.info/app/1404210/
https://steamdb.info/app/1418100/
https://steamdb.info/app/1942660/
https://steamdb.info/app/2080820/
https://steamdb.info/app/2183600/
Brief explanation of the change
Find CrashPad

missing non matching tests

Done.


Display sticker description on row message click

https://github.com/vector-im/riot-meta/issues/146

Sticker display in dark theme

Sticker display in black theme


ORC-1819: Publish snapshot website through GitHub Pages

What changes were proposed in this pull request?
This PR aims to publish the Apache ORC snapshot website through GitHub Pages.
Why are the changes needed?
To provide users with the most recent updates on the website in between releases.
How was this patch tested?
Manually.
Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling?
No.

cc: @dongjoon-hyun, @wgtmac

Let's merge this and see the result.

Merged to main.

I verified that it's live now. It looks good to me although there are some absolute news link issues. Thank you.

https://apache.github.io/orc/

Thank you! @dongjoon-hyun
Happy Holidays :)

Wow, it's great to have this! Thanks @williamhyun @dongjoon-hyun!

Thank you Gang and happy holidays!


Add onFocus prop

Please add onFocus props to the CodeInput component so that I can handle some animations using that.

@hiradarshadi Hi!
Can you check thip pr:  https://github.com/ttdung11t2/react-native-confirmation-code-input/issues/41 ?


Merge package:lints

[x] Move and fix workflow files, labeler.yaml, and badges in the README.md
[x] Rev the version of the package, so that pub.dev points to the correct site
[x] Add a line to the changelog:

* Move to `dart-lang/core` monorepo.

[x] Add the package to the top-level readme of the monorepo:

| [lints](pkgs/lints/) | Official Dart lint rules. Defines the 'core' and 'recommended' set of lints suggested by the Dart team.
 | [![pub package](https://img.shields.io/pub/v/lints.svg)](https://pub.dev/packages/lints) |

[ ] Important! Merge the PR with 'Create a merge commit' (enabling then disabling the Allow merge commits admin setting)
[ ] Add the lints project to this repo
[ ] Update the auto-publishing settings on https://pub.dev/packages/lints/admin
[x] Add the following text to https://github.com/dart-lang/lints/:'

> [!IMPORTANT]
> This repo has moved to https://github.com/dart-lang/core/tree/main/pkgs/lints

[ ] Publish using the autopublish workflow
[ ] Push tags to GitHub using git tag --list 'lints*' | xargs git push origin
[ ] Close open PRs in dart-lang/lints with the following message:

Closing as the [dart-lang/lints](https://github.com/dart-lang/lints) repository is merged into the [dart-lang/core](https://github.com/dart-lang/core) monorepo. Please re-open this PR there!

[ ] Transfer issues by running dart run pkgs/repo_manage/bin/report.dart transfer-issues --source-repo dart-lang/lints --target-repo dart-lang/core --add-label package:lints --apply-changes
[ ] Archive https://github.com/dart-lang/lints/

[ ] I’ve reviewed the contributor guide and applied the relevant portions to this PR.

Contribution guidelines:

See our contributor guide for general expectations for PRs.
Larger or significant changes should be discussed in an issue before creating a PR.
Contributions to our repos should follow the Dart style guide and use dart format.
Most changes should add an entry to the changelog and may need to rev the pubspec package version.
Changes to packages require corresponding tests.

Note that many Dart repos have a weekly cadence for reviewing PRs - please allow for some latency before initial review feedback.

Should this package not be auto-published? @devoncarew

Should this package not be auto-published? @devoncarew

I think it's fine to auto-publish. We will want to upgrade our publishing automation a bit; with many packages living in a repo, we'll want to have some precision about which commits we publish from (i.e., not just the head commit). I'll open an issue for that.

I think it's fine to auto-publish. We will want to upgrade our publishing automation a bit; with many packages living in a repo, we'll want to have some precision about which commits we publish from (i.e., not just the head commit). I'll open an issue for that.

I am asking because the publish workflow is failing because of the dependency on a pre-release SDK version, and I don't know how SDK versioning is handled with package:lints.

I am asking because the publish workflow is failing because of the dependency on a pre-release SDK version, and I don't know how SDK versioning is handled with package:lints.

Ah, I see;

Package validation found the following potential issue:
Packages with an SDK constraint on a pre-release of the Dart SDK should themselves be published as a pre-release version. If this package needs Dart version 3.6.0-0, consider publishing the package as a pre-release instead.

And once this package is in a monorepo, every PR will need to apply a label to ignore failures from the publishing bot. That's a bit annoying.
We could either solve that - allow per-package configuration of publishing validation - or delay adding this package to the monorepo until after the next stable sdk release. We don't typically need to depend on a pre-release sdk for package:lints.

@mosuem - as of https://github.com/dart-lang/lints/pull/220 this should be unblocked. A few commits have landed in the source repo after this PR was created; I don't know if we want to include them or just recreate this PR.

I will rerun the merge tool and force-push to this PR.


Pump power higher but net power remains the same?

Per user:

The pump horsepower for a 250 Deg C reservoir is higher in Geophires X than Geophires 2 (it is zero for 6 years in Geophires 2)

Which is correct?

Despite this, the average net power for Geophires X is more (12.75 MWe vs 12.12 MWe).

[X] TODO for @softwareengineerprogrammer: include input files from user email in issue

Attached output files from user:
Durham200mWellSep.out:
                               *****************
                               ***CASE REPORT***
                               *****************

                           ***SUMMARY OF RESULTS***

      End-Use Option = Electricity
      Average Net Electricity Production (MWe)               11.72
      Electricity breakeven price (cents/kWh)                12.61
      Number of production wells                              2
      Number of injection wells                               2
      Flowrate per production well (kg/s)                    50.0
      Well depth (m)                                       6400.0
      Geothermal gradient (deg.C/km)                         41.0

                           ***ECONOMIC PARAMETERS***

      Economic Model  = BICYCLE Model
      Accrued financing during construction (%)               5.00
      Project lifetime (years)                               25
      Capacity factor (%)                                    95.0

                          ***ENGINEERING PARAMETERS***

      Well depth (m)                                       6400.0
      Water loss rate (%)                                     5.0
      Pump efficiency (%)                                    80.0
      Injection temperature (deg.C)                          50.0
      Production Wellbore heat transmission calculated with Ramey's model
      Average production well temperature drop (deg.C)        7.8
      Flowrate per production well (kg/s)                    50.0
      Injection well casing ID (inches)                       9.000
      Produciton well casing ID (inches)                      9.000
      Number of times redrilling                              0
      Power plant type                                        Subcritical ORC

                         ***RESOURCE CHARACTERISTICS***

      Maximum reservoir temperature (deg.C)                 400.0
      Number of segments                                      1
      Geothermal gradient (deg.C/km)                         41.0

                           ***RESERVOIR PARAMETERS***

      Reservoir Model = Multiple Parallel Fractures Model
      Bottom-hole temperature (deg.C)                       271.40
      Fracture model = circular fracture with known diameter
      Well seperation = fracture diameter (m)               400.00
      Fracture area (m^2)                                125664
      Reservoir volume calculated with fracture separation and number of fractures as input
      Number of fractures                                    20.00
      Fracture separation (m)                               200.00
      Reservoir volume (m^3)                          477522083
      Reservoir hydrostatic pressure (kPa)                57800.24
      Plant outlet pressure (kPa)                          5960.82
      Production wellhead pressure (kPa)                   6029.77
      Productivity Index (kg/s/bar)                           5.00
      Injectivity Index (kg/s/bar)                            5.00
      Reservoir density (kg/m^3)                           2594.00
      Reservoir thermal conductivity (W/m/K)                  2.60
      Reservoir heat capacity (J/kg/K)                      774.00

                          ***CAPITAL COSTS (M$)***

      Drilling and completion costs                          70.85
      Drilling and completion costs per well                 17.71
      Stimulation costs                                       3.02
      Surface power plant costs                              50.35
      Field gathering system costs                            2.90
      Total surface equipment costs                          53.25
      Exploration costs                                      14.32
      Total capital costs                                   141.44

                ***OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS (M$/yr)***

      Wellfield maintenance costs                             1.13
      Power plant maintenance costs                           1.94
      Water costs                                             0.14
      Total operating and maintenance costs                   3.21

                           ***POWER GENERATION RESULTS***

      Initial geofluid availability (MWe/(kg/s)               0.30
      Initial net power generation (MWe)                     18.36
      Average net power generation (MWe)                     11.72
      Initial pumping power/net installed power (%)           0.00
      Average Annual Net Electricity Generation (GWh/yr)     97.53
      Average injection well pump pressure drop (kPa)          -8364.8
      Average production well pump pressure drop (kPa)          1578.4

                                        ******************************
                                        *  POWER GENERATION PROFILE  *
                                        ******************************
  YEAR            THERMAL                    GEOFLUID                    PUMP                    NET                    FIRST LAW
                  DRAWDOWN                  TEMPERATURE                  POWER                  POWER                   EFFICIENCY
                                              (deg C)                    (MWe)                  (MWe)                       (%)
   0                1.0000                     253.58                    0.0000                18.3584                    20.9310
   1                1.0141                     257.15                    0.0000                19.1683                    21.4782
   2                1.0161                     257.68                    0.0000                19.2902                    21.5599
   3                1.0095                     255.98                    0.0000                18.9013                    21.2987
   4                0.9958                     252.51                    0.0000                18.1202                    20.7686
   5                0.9782                     248.06                    0.0000                17.1509                    20.1000
   6                0.9590                     243.19                    0.0000                16.1339                    19.3845
   7                0.9395                     238.24                    0.0000                15.1439                    18.6732
   8                0.9204                     233.40                    0.0399                14.1753                    17.9407
   9                0.9020                     228.74                    0.1105                13.2495                    17.2059
  10                0.8846                     224.31                    0.1751                12.4048                    16.5184
  11                0.8680                     220.12                    0.2339                11.6371                    15.8778
  12                0.8525                     216.17                    0.2875                10.9402                    15.2818
  13                0.8378                     212.44                    0.3363                10.3071                    14.7274
  14                0.8239                     208.94                    0.3809                 9.7311                    14.2111
  15                0.8109                     205.63                    0.4218                 9.2059                    13.7296
  16                0.7986                     202.51                    0.4594                 8.7257                    13.2796
  17                0.7870                     199.57                    0.4939                 8.2857                    12.8583
  18                0.7760                     196.78                    0.5259                 7.8814                    12.4630
  19                0.7656                     194.14                    0.5555                 7.5089                    12.0913
  20                0.7557                     191.64                    0.5829                 7.1647                    11.7411
  21                0.7464                     189.26                    0.6085                 6.8461                    11.4104
  22                0.7374                     187.00                    0.6323                 6.5502                    11.0976
  23                0.7289                     184.85                    0.6546                 6.2750                    10.8012
  24                0.7208                     182.79                    0.6755                 6.0184                    10.5198
  25                0.7131                     180.83                    0.6951                 5.7786                    10.2522

                              ***************************************************************
                              *  HEAT AND/OR ELECTRICITY EXTRACTION AND GENERATION PROFILE  *
                              ***************************************************************
  YEAR             ELECTRICITY                   HEAT                RESERVOIR            PERCENTAGE OF
                    PROVIDED                   EXTRACTED            HEAT CONTENT        TOTAL HEAT MINED
                   (GWh/year)                  (GWh/year)            (10^15 J)                 (%)
   1                 156.5                       737.0                209.61                   1.25
   2                 160.4                       744.3                206.93                   2.51
   3                 159.2                       742.2                204.26                   3.77
   4                 154.2                       732.7                201.62                   5.01
   5                 146.8                       718.3                199.04                   6.23
   6                 138.5                       701.4                196.51                   7.42
   7                 130.1                       683.8                194.05                   8.58
   8                 122.0                       666.2                191.65                   9.71
   9                 114.1                       649.1                189.32                  10.81
  10                 106.7                       632.8                187.04                  11.89
  11                 100.0                       617.4                184.82                  12.93
  12                  93.9                       602.8                182.65                  13.95
  13                  88.4                       589.0                180.53                  14.95
  14                  83.3                       576.1                178.45                  15.93
  15                  78.8                       563.9                176.42                  16.89
  16                  74.6                       552.4                174.43                  17.82
  17                  70.8                       541.5                172.48                  18.74
  18                  67.2                       531.2                170.57                  19.64
  19                  64.0                       521.5                168.69                  20.53
  20                  61.0                       512.3                166.85                  21.40
  21                  58.3                       503.5                165.04                  22.25
  22                  55.7                       495.2                163.25                  23.09
  23                  53.4                       487.3                161.50                  23.92
  24                  51.1                       479.8                159.77                  24.73
  25                  49.1                       472.6                158.07                  25.53

GeophiresX-Durham200mWellSep.out:
                               *****************
                               ***CASE REPORT***
                               *****************

Simulation Metadata
----------------------
 GEOPHIRES Version: 3.4.22
 GEOPHIRES Build Date: 2024-03-05
 Simulation Date: 2024-03-22
 Simulation Time:  20:37
 Calculation Time:      2.089 sec

                           ***SUMMARY OF RESULTS***

      End-Use Option: Electricity
      Average Net Electricity Production:                    12.75 MW
      Electricity breakeven price:                           12.70 cents/kWh
      Number of production wells:                             2
      Number of injection wells:                              2
      Flowrate per production well:                          57.0 kg/sec
      Well depth (or total length, if not vertical):          6.4 kilometer
      Geothermal gradient:                                    0.0410 degC/m

                           ***ECONOMIC PARAMETERS***

      Economic Model  = BICYCLE
      Accrued financing during construction:                  5.00
      Project lifetime:                                      25 yr
      Capacity factor:                                       95.0 %
      Project NPV:                                        -112.83 MUSD
      Project IRR:                                         -10.13 %
      Project VIR=PI=PIR:                                    0.26
      Project MOIC:                                         -0.39
      Project Payback Period:                          N/A

                          ***ENGINEERING PARAMETERS***

      Number of Production Wells:                             2
      Number of Injection Wells:                              2
      Well depth (or total length, if not vertical):          6.4 kilometer
      Water loss rate:                                        5.0
      Pump efficiency:                                       80.0
      Injection temperature:                                 50.0 degC
      Production Wellbore heat transmission calculated with Ramey's model
      Average production well temperature drop:               7.0 degC
      Flowrate per production well:                          57.0 kg/sec
      Injection well casing ID:                               9.000 in
      Production well casing ID:                              9.000 in
      Number of times redrilling:                             0
      Power plant type:                                       Supercritical ORC

                         ***RESOURCE CHARACTERISTICS***

      Maximum reservoir temperature:                        400.0 degC
      Number of segments:                                     1
      Geothermal gradient:                                    0.0410 degC/m

                           ***RESERVOIR PARAMETERS***

      Reservoir Model = Multiple Parallel Fractures Model
      Bottom-hole temperature:                              271.40 degC
      Fracture model = Circular fracture with known diameter
      Well seperation: fracture diameter:                   400.00 meter
      Fracture area:                                     125663.71 m**2
      Reservoir volume calculated with fracture separation and number of fractures as input
      Number of fractures:                                   20.00
      Fracture separation:                                  200.00 meter
      Reservoir volume:                               477522083 m**3
      Reservoir hydrostatic pressure:                     62154.78 kPa
      Plant outlet pressure:                               5900.25 kPa
      Production wellhead pressure:                        5969.20 kPa
      Productivity Index:                                     5.00 kg/sec/bar
      Injectivity Index:                                      5.00 kg/sec/bar
      Reservoir density:                                   2594.00 kg/m**3
      Reservoir thermal conductivity:                         2.60 W/m/K
      Reservoir heat capacity:                              774.00 J/kg/K

                           ***RESERVOIR SIMULATION RESULTS***

      Maximum Production Temperature:                       258.3 degC
      Average Production Temperature:                       214.2 degC
      Minimum Production Temperature:                       175.8 degC
      Initial Production Temperature:                       254.5 degC
      Average Reservoir Heat Extraction:                     74.66 MW
      Production Wellbore Heat Transmission Model = Ramey Model
      Average Production Well Temperature Drop:               7.0 degC
      Average Injection Well Pump Pressure Drop:          -7906.2 kPa
      Average Production Well Pump Pressure Drop:          4160.5 kPa

                          ***CAPITAL COSTS (M$)***

         Drilling and completion costs:                      70.85 MUSD
         Drilling and completion costs per well:             17.71 MUSD
         Stimulation costs:                                   3.02 MUSD
         Surface power plant costs:                          61.69 MUSD
         Field gathering system costs:                        2.66 MUSD
         Total surface equipment costs:                      64.34 MUSD
         Exploration costs:                                  14.32 MUSD
      Total capital costs:                                  152.53 MUSD

                ***OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS (M$/yr)***

         Wellfield maintenance costs:                         1.13 MUSD/yr
         Power plant maintenance costs:                       2.12 MUSD/yr
         Water costs:                                         0.16 MUSD/yr
      Total operating and maintenance costs:                  3.41 MUSD/yr

                           ***SURFACE EQUIPMENT SIMULATION RESULTS***

      Initial geofluid availability:                          0.31 MW/(kg/s)
      Maximum Total Electricity Generation:                  19.57 MW
      Average Total Electricity Generation:                  13.38 MW
      Minimum Total Electricity Generation:                   8.14 MW
      Initial Total Electricity Generation:                  19.06 MW
      Maximum Net Electricity Generation:                    19.32 MW
      Average Net Electricity Generation:                    12.75 MW
      Minimum Net Electricity Generation:                     7.22 MW
      Initial Net Electricity Generation:                    18.79 MW
      Average Annual Total Electricity Generation:          110.58 GWh
      Average Annual Net Electricity Generation:            105.39 GWh
      Initial pumping power/net installed power:              1.40 %
      Average Pumping Power:                                  0.63 MW

                            ************************************************************
                            *  HEATING, COOLING AND/OR ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION PROFILE  *
                            ************************************************************
  YEAR       THERMAL               GEOFLUID               PUMP               NET               FIRST LAW
             DRAWDOWN             TEMPERATURE             POWER             POWER              EFFICIENCY
                                     (degC)               (MW)              (MW)                  (%)
   1           1.0000                254.49               0.2639           18.7947               20.2152
   2           1.0133                257.87               0.2567           19.2621               20.3809
   3           1.0138                257.99               0.2625           19.2722               20.3800
   4           1.0035                255.38               0.2901           18.8898               20.2298
   5           0.9859                250.90               0.3328           18.2299               19.9584
   6           0.9649                245.56               0.3815           17.4345               19.6080
   7           0.9430                239.99               0.4307           16.5945               19.2105
   8           0.9215                234.50               0.4779           15.7602               18.7879
   9           0.9008                229.23               0.5220           14.9576               18.3551
  10           0.8812                224.25               0.5628           14.1987               17.9218
  11           0.8628                219.58               0.6002           13.4881               17.4945
  12           0.8456                215.20               0.6346           12.8263               17.0768
  13           0.8295                211.11               0.6662           12.2114               16.6714
  14           0.8145                207.28               0.6952           11.6408               16.2793
  15           0.8004                203.69               0.7220           11.1112               15.9012
  16           0.7872                200.33               0.7467           10.6194               15.5371
  17           0.7748                197.17               0.7696           10.1620               15.1870
  18           0.7631                194.20               0.7909            9.7362               14.8504
  19           0.7521                191.40               0.8107            9.3391               14.5269
  20           0.7417                188.76               0.8292            8.9682               14.2158
  21           0.7319                186.25               0.8465            8.6213               13.9166
  22           0.7226                183.89               0.8627            8.2961               13.6287
  23           0.7137                181.64               0.8779            7.9909               13.3516
  24           0.7053                179.50               0.8923            7.7039               13.0846
  25           0.6973                177.46               0.9058            7.4337               12.8273

                              *******************************************************************
                              *  ANNUAL HEATING, COOLING AND/OR ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION PROFILE  *
                              *******************************************************************
  YEAR             ELECTRICITY                   HEAT                RESERVOIR            PERCENTAGE OF
                    PROVIDED                   EXTRACTED            HEAT CONTENT        TOTAL HEAT MINED
                   (GWh/year)                  (GWh/year)            (10^15 J)                 (%)
   1                 158.6                       780.8                209.46                   1.32
   2                 160.6                       787.6                206.62                   2.66
   3                 159.0                       782.8                203.80                   3.99
   4                 154.6                       769.0                201.03                   5.29
   5                 148.5                       750.2                198.33                   6.56
   6                 141.6                       729.4                195.71                   7.80
   7                 134.6                       708.4                193.16                   9.00
   8                 127.8                       688.0                190.68                  10.17
   9                 121.3                       668.6                188.27                  11.30
  10                 115.2                       650.4                185.93                  12.41
  11                 109.5                       633.3                183.65                  13.48
  12                 104.2                       617.2                181.43                  14.53
  13                  99.2                       602.2                179.26                  15.55
  14                  94.6                       588.2                177.14                  16.55
  15                  90.4                       575.1                175.07                  17.52
  16                  86.4                       562.8                173.05                  18.48
  17                  82.8                       551.2                171.06                  19.41
  18                  79.4                       540.3                169.12                  20.33
  19                  76.2                       530.0                167.21                  21.23
  20                  73.2                       520.2                165.34                  22.11
  21                  70.4                       511.0                163.50                  22.98
  22                  67.8                       502.3                161.69                  23.83
  23                  65.3                       494.0                159.91                  24.66
  24                  63.0                       486.1                158.16                  25.49
  25                  50.8                       399.3                156.72                  26.17

                             ********************************
                             *  REVENUE & CASHFLOW PROFILE  *
                             ********************************
Year            Electricity             |            Heat                  |           Cooling                 |         Carbon                    |          Project
Since     Price   Ann. Rev.  Cumm. Rev. |   Price   Ann. Rev.   Cumm. Rev. |  Price   Ann. Rev.   Cumm. Rev.   |   Price   Ann. Rev.   Cumm. Rev.  | OPEX    Net Rev.      Net Cashflow
Start    (cents/kWh)(MUSD/yr) (MUSD)    |(cents/kWh) (MUSD/yr)    (MUSD)   |(cents/kWh) (MUSD/yr)    (MUSD)    |(USD/tonne) (MUSD/yr)    (MUSD)    |(MUSD/yr) (MUSD/yr)    (MUSD)
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
  1      5.50          -152.53   0.00     |    2.50     0.00         0.00    |    2.50     0.00         0.00     |    0.00     0.00         0.00     |  0.00     -152.53     -152.53
  2      5.50           5.31   8.72     |    2.50     0.00         0.00    |    2.50     0.00         0.00     |    0.00     0.00         0.00     |  3.41      5.31     -147.22
  3      5.50           5.42  17.56     |    2.50     0.00         0.00    |    2.50     0.00         0.00     |    0.00     0.00         0.00     |  3.41      5.42     -141.80
  4      5.50           5.34  26.30     |    2.50     0.00         0.00    |    2.50     0.00         0.00     |    0.00     0.00         0.00     |  3.41      5.34     -136.46
  5      5.50           5.09  34.80     |    2.50     0.00         0.00    |    2.50     0.00         0.00     |    0.00     0.00         0.00     |  3.41      5.09     -131.37
  6      5.50           4.75  42.97     |    2.50     0.00         0.00    |    2.50     0.00         0.00     |    0.00     0.00         0.00     |  3.41      4.75     -126.62
  7      5.50           4.38  50.76     |    2.50     0.00         0.00    |    2.50     0.00         0.00     |    0.00     0.00         0.00     |  3.41      4.38     -122.24
  8      5.50           3.99  58.16     |    2.50     0.00         0.00    |    2.50     0.00         0.00     |    0.00     0.00         0.00     |  3.41      3.99     -118.25
  9      5.50           3.62  65.19     |    2.50     0.00         0.00    |    2.50     0.00         0.00     |    0.00     0.00         0.00     |  3.41      3.62     -114.63
 10      5.50           3.26  71.86     |    2.50     0.00         0.00    |    2.50     0.00         0.00     |    0.00     0.00         0.00     |  3.41      3.26     -111.37
 11      5.50           2.92  78.19     |    2.50     0.00         0.00    |    2.50     0.00         0.00     |    0.00     0.00         0.00     |  3.41      2.92     -108.45
 12      5.50           2.61  84.22     |    2.50     0.00         0.00    |    2.50     0.00         0.00     |    0.00     0.00         0.00     |  3.41      2.61     -105.84
 13      5.50           2.32  89.94     |    2.50     0.00         0.00    |    2.50     0.00         0.00     |    0.00     0.00         0.00     |  3.41      2.32     -103.52
 14      5.50           2.05  95.40     |    2.50     0.00         0.00    |    2.50     0.00         0.00     |    0.00     0.00         0.00     |  3.41      2.05     -101.47
 15      5.50           1.79  100.61     |    2.50     0.00         0.00    |    2.50     0.00         0.00     |    0.00     0.00         0.00     |  3.41      1.79     -99.68
 16      5.50           1.56  105.58     |    2.50     0.00         0.00    |    2.50     0.00         0.00     |    0.00     0.00         0.00     |  3.41      1.56     -98.12
 17      5.50           1.34  110.33     |    2.50     0.00         0.00    |    2.50     0.00         0.00     |    0.00     0.00         0.00     |  3.41      1.34     -96.77
 18      5.50           1.14  114.89     |    2.50     0.00         0.00    |    2.50     0.00         0.00     |    0.00     0.00         0.00     |  3.41      1.14     -95.63
 19      5.50           0.95  119.25     |    2.50     0.00         0.00    |    2.50     0.00         0.00     |    0.00     0.00         0.00     |  3.41      0.95     -94.68
 20      5.50           0.78  123.44     |    2.50     0.00         0.00    |    2.50     0.00         0.00     |    0.00     0.00         0.00     |  3.41      0.78     -93.90
 21      5.50           0.61  127.46     |    2.50     0.00         0.00    |    2.50     0.00         0.00     |    0.00     0.00         0.00     |  3.41      0.61     -93.29
 22      5.50           0.46  131.33     |    2.50     0.00         0.00    |    2.50     0.00         0.00     |    0.00     0.00         0.00     |  3.41      0.46     -92.83
 23      5.50           0.32  135.06     |    2.50     0.00         0.00    |    2.50     0.00         0.00     |    0.00     0.00         0.00     |  3.41      0.32     -92.51
 24      5.50           0.18  138.65     |    2.50     0.00         0.00    |    2.50     0.00         0.00     |    0.00     0.00         0.00     |  3.41      0.18     -92.33
 25      5.50           0.05  142.12     |    2.50     0.00         0.00    |    2.50     0.00         0.00     |    0.00     0.00         0.00     |  3.41      0.05     -92.28

Geophires2-Durham200mWellSepSplit.out:
                               *****************
                               ***CASE REPORT***
                               *****************

                           ***SUMMARY OF RESULTS***

      End-Use Option = Electricity
      Average Net Electricity Production (MWe)               12.12
      Electricity breakeven price (cents/kWh)                12.77
      Number of production wells                              2
      Number of injection wells                               2
      Flowrate per production well (kg/s)                    57.0
      Well depth (m)                                       6400.0
      Geothermal gradient (deg.C/km)                         41.0

                           ***ECONOMIC PARAMETERS***

      Economic Model  = BICYCLE Model
      Accrued financing during construction (%)               5.00
      Project lifetime (years)                               25
      Capacity factor (%)                                    95.0

                          ***ENGINEERING PARAMETERS***

      Well depth (m)                                       6400.0
      Water loss rate (%)                                     5.0
      Pump efficiency (%)                                    80.0
      Injection temperature (deg.C)                          50.0
      Production Wellbore heat transmission calculated with Ramey's model
      Average production well temperature drop (deg.C)        6.0
      Flowrate per production well (kg/s)                    57.0
      Injection well casing ID (inches)                       9.000
      Produciton well casing ID (inches)                      9.000
      Number of times redrilling                              0
      Power plant type                                        Supercritical ORC

                         ***RESOURCE CHARACTERISTICS***

      Maximum reservoir temperature (deg.C)                 400.0
      Number of segments                                      1
      Geothermal gradient (deg.C/km)                         41.0

                           ***RESERVOIR PARAMETERS***

      Reservoir Model = Multiple Parallel Fractures Model
      Bottom-hole temperature (deg.C)                       271.40
      Fracture model = circular fracture with known diameter
      Well seperation = fracture diameter (m)               400.00
      Fracture area (m^2)                                125664
      Reservoir volume calculated with fracture separation and number of fractures as input
      Number of fractures                                    20.00
      Fracture separation (m)                               200.00
      Reservoir volume (m^3)                          477522083
      Reservoir hydrostatic pressure (kPa)                57800.24
      Plant outlet pressure (kPa)                          5960.82
      Production wellhead pressure (kPa)                   6029.77
      Productivity Index (kg/s/bar)                           5.00
      Injectivity Index (kg/s/bar)                            5.00
      Reservoir density (kg/m^3)                           2594.00
      Reservoir thermal conductivity (W/m/K)                  2.60
      Reservoir heat capacity (J/kg/K)                      774.00

                          ***CAPITAL COSTS (M$)***

      Drilling and completion costs                          70.85
      Drilling and completion costs per well                 17.71
      Stimulation costs                                       3.02
      Surface power plant costs                              56.30
      Field gathering system costs                            3.11
      Total surface equipment costs                          59.41
      Exploration costs                                      14.32
      Total capital costs                                   147.61

                ***OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS (M$/yr)***

      Wellfield maintenance costs                             1.14
      Power plant maintenance costs                           2.04
      Water costs                                             0.16
      Total operating and maintenance costs                   3.34

                           ***POWER GENERATION RESULTS***

      Initial geofluid availability (MWe/(kg/s)               0.31
      Initial net power generation (MWe)                     19.22
      Average net power generation (MWe)                     12.12
      Initial pumping power/net installed power (%)           0.00
      Average Annual Net Electricity Generation (GWh/yr)    100.86
      Average injection well pump pressure drop (kPa)          -8100.9
      Average production well pump pressure drop (kPa)          2698.3

                                        ******************************
                                        *  POWER GENERATION PROFILE  *
                                        ******************************
  YEAR            THERMAL                    GEOFLUID                    PUMP                    NET                    FIRST LAW
                  DRAWDOWN                  TEMPERATURE                  POWER                  POWER                   EFFICIENCY
                                              (deg C)                    (MWe)                  (MWe)                       (%)
   0                1.0000                     255.68                    0.0000                19.2213                    19.0275
   1                1.0122                     258.81                    0.0000                19.6451                    19.1556
   2                1.0096                     258.13                    0.0000                19.5536                    19.1286
   3                0.9936                     254.05                    0.0000                18.9984                    18.9569
   4                0.9706                     248.16                    0.0000                18.1808                    18.6805
   5                0.9453                     241.69                    0.0000                17.2674                    18.3404
   6                0.9201                     235.26                    0.0719                16.2758                    17.8872
   7                0.8962                     229.13                    0.1766                15.2883                    17.3771
   8                0.8737                     223.39                    0.2697                14.3676                    16.8712
   9                0.8529                     218.06                    0.3522                13.5189                    16.3779
  10                0.8336                     213.13                    0.4253                12.7405                    15.9015
  11                0.8157                     208.57                    0.4903                12.0280                    15.4442
  12                0.7992                     204.34                    0.5484                11.3759                    15.0068
  13                0.7839                     200.42                    0.6005                10.7783                    14.5892
  14                0.7696                     196.77                    0.6475                10.2299                    14.1909
  15                0.7563                     193.37                    0.6900                 9.7254                    13.8111
  16                0.7439                     190.20                    0.7287                 9.2605                    13.4487
  17                0.7323                     187.22                    0.7640                 8.8309                    13.1030
  18                0.7213                     184.43                    0.7963                 8.4331                    12.7727
  19                0.7110                     181.80                    0.8261                 8.0639                    12.4570
  20                0.7014                     179.32                    0.8536                 7.7204                    12.1550
  21                0.6922                     176.98                    0.8791                 7.4002                    11.8656
  22                0.6835                     174.77                    0.9027                 7.1010                    11.5882
  23                0.6753                     172.66                    0.9247                 6.8210                    11.3220
  24                0.6675                     170.67                    0.9453                 6.5584                    11.0662
  25                0.6601                     168.77                    0.9645                 6.3117                    10.8202

                              ***************************************************************
                              *  HEAT AND/OR ELECTRICITY EXTRACTION AND GENERATION PROFILE  *
                              ***************************************************************
  YEAR             ELECTRICITY                   HEAT                RESERVOIR            PERCENTAGE OF
                    PROVIDED                   EXTRACTED            HEAT CONTENT        TOTAL HEAT MINED
                   (GWh/year)                  (GWh/year)            (10^15 J)                 (%)
   1                 161.9                       847.8                209.21                   1.44
   2                 163.5                       853.3                206.14                   2.89
   3                 160.7                       843.2                203.11                   4.32
   4                 154.8                       822.3                200.15                   5.71
   5                 147.5                       796.8                197.28                   7.06
   6                 139.7                       770.3                194.50                   8.37
   7                 131.3                       744.6                191.82                   9.63
   8                 123.4                       720.3                189.23                  10.85
   9                 116.0                       697.7                186.72                  12.04
  10                 109.2                       676.7                184.28                  13.18
  11                 103.0                       657.3                181.92                  14.30
  12                  97.3                       639.4                179.62                  15.38
  13                  92.1                       622.7                177.37                  16.44
  14                  87.4                       607.3                175.19                  17.47
  15                  83.0                       592.9                173.05                  18.47
  16                  79.0                       579.5                170.97                  19.46
  17                  75.3                       566.9                168.93                  20.42
  18                  71.8                       555.1                166.93                  21.36
  19                  68.6                       544.0                164.97                  22.28
  20                  65.7                       533.6                163.05                  23.19
  21                  62.9                       523.8                161.16                  24.08
  22                  60.3                       514.4                159.31                  24.95
  23                  57.9                       505.6                157.49                  25.81
  24                  55.7                       497.3                155.70                  26.65
  25                  53.5                       489.3                153.94                  27.48

Regarding higher pumping power: Hydrostatic pressure is now calculated using water density calculated with pressure instead of just vapor quality (https://github.com/NREL/GEOPHIRES-X/blob/46d18a783f1134f9873e77899b39a5bb2d009817/src/geophires_x/WellBores.py#L284-L298; https://github.com/NREL/GEOPHIRES-X/blob/46d18a783f1134f9873e77899b39a5bb2d009817/src/geophires_x/WellBores.py#L951-L955). This results in increased calculated hydrostatic pressure values which in turn increases required pumping power (https://github.com/NREL/GEOPHIRES-X/blob/46d18a783f1134f9873e77899b39a5bb2d009817/src/geophires_x/WellBores.py#L383-L386).
@kfbeckers or @malcolm-dsider can you weigh in on whether net power is expected to remain the same despite increased pumping power? I can look into the actual net power calculation when I have time, but perhaps you may know whether this is an expected result or not offhand.

I’ll let Koenraad decide on this one, but my understanding is that the model assumes that the net power is equal to the gross power minus the pumping power, so if pumping power requirements go up, the net should go down. If that is true, and it is not working that way, I am happy to go hunting for the reason. Just ask.
While we are looking at pressure and pumping, I should also point out that perhaps we should be looking at improving how the pressures are handled in order to account for overpressure systems… The DOE just announced $8B new money (yes, that is the word that starts with a B!) for new renewable energy projects in Texas and Louisiana, so the interest in doing geothermal in the overpressure belts of TX and LA is going to go WAY up, as they are among the most prospective targets in the region. As far as I know, GEOPHIRES doesn’t address overpressure. If that is true, I suggest we add something that does. The net effect of overpressure is to make production pumping easier (or zero) while increasing the pumping effort required for injection (this assumes you are injecting back into the source formation – we also might want to figure out how to account for injecting into a different (shallower, lower-pressure) formation). The other characteristic of overpressure I think we should try to account for is pressure depletion – as you allow the overpressure to lift your brine to the surface, it eventually depletes, and you have to start pumping.
My approach to this would be to add two new parameters to the code. The first one contains the percent of pressure at which the initial overpressure starts that is above and beyond what would be normally expected if the formation was not overpressured  – “Initial overpressure is 30% than expected lithostatic/hydrostatic pressure.” The second new parameter would capture the rate of depletion – “overpressure depletes at 10% per year.” The algorithm can figure out at what point the overpressure drops to the point that the flow rate from the formation is less than the desired flow rate, and it can start adding in production pumping from that point in an ever-increasing amount until it gets to the pumping power you would expect if there never was overpressure (i.e., full depletion). The injection side story is the opposite – we need to calculate how much additional pumping is needed to overcome the overpressure, but then that number goes down as the overpressure depletes.
In the end, I don’t think this is going to make that big a difference – the uplift you get from the overpressure is going to be close to the increased pumping required to do the injection, but pumping down is always easier than pumping up, so there will be some difference… and in any case, I think our users want to be able to point to evidence in the output from GEOPHIRES that shows it is at least accounting for overpressure, even if the impact turns out to be relatively small.
If everyone agrees that this work is worthy and that I have the right approach, I’ll put it on my to-do list.
-Malcolm
From: Jonathan Pezzino @.>
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2024 11:26 AM
To: NREL/GEOPHIRES-X @.>
Cc: Malcolm Ross @.>; Mention @.>
Subject: Re: [NREL/GEOPHIRES-X] Pump power higher but net power remains the same? (Issue #167)
Regarding higher pumping power: Hydrostatic pressure is now calculated using water density calculated with pressure instead of just vapor quality (https://github.com/NREL/GEOPHIRES-X/blob/46d18a783f1134f9873e77899b39a5bb2d009817/src/geophires_x/WellBores.py#L284-L298; https://github.com/NREL/GEOPHIRES-X/blob/46d18a783f1134f9873e77899b39a5bb2d009817/src/geophires_x/WellBores.py#L951-L955). This results in increased calculated hydrostatic pressure values which in turn increases required pumping power (https://github.com/NREL/GEOPHIRES-X/blob/46d18a783f1134f9873e77899b39a5bb2d009817/src/geophires_x/WellBores.py#L383-L386).
@kfbeckers https://github.com/kfbeckers  or @malcolm-dsider https://github.com/malcolm-dsider  can you weigh in on whether net power is expected to remain the same despite increased pumping power? I can look into the actual net power calculation when I have time, but perhaps you may know whether this is an expected result or not offhand.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/NREL/GEOPHIRES-X/issues/167#issuecomment-2016539336 , or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AWGVYT6JVZE2MCL7EMNUEG3YZWUJLAVCNFSM6AAAAABFEH4HA6VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDAMJWGUZTSMZTGY .
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.  https://github.com/notifications/beacon/AWGVYT53STHPXQYO47QHL4TYZWUJLA5CNFSM6AAAAABFEH4HA6WGG33NNVSW45C7OR4XAZNMJFZXG5LFINXW23LFNZ2KUY3PNVWWK3TUL5UWJTTYGHZMQ.gif Message ID: @.*** @.***> >

Thanks for your answer @malcolm-dsider!

Re: "I am happy to go hunting for the reason. Just ask." If you're willing and able to volunteer for this I say "Yes please!" - thank you!
Moved overpressure topic to separate discussion: https://github.com/NREL/GEOPHIRES-X/discussions/176

The power that is generated is slightly more because the predicted temperatures produced by the reservoir in GEOPHIRES-X are slightly higher. Why there is that slight difference is not yet clear to me, but it would be useful to have the user's input file so I can trace where that slight difference is coming from in the Reservoir model. Do we have it or can we get it?

Without the user's input file, and can't trace the issue for sure, but I am 90% sure that the net power is slightly higher because in GEOPHIRES-X, we have switched to using CoolProps to more accurately calculate the working fluid (water) density, viscosity, vapor pressure, entropy, and enthalpy as a function of the reservoir conditions over time. Previously, these values were calculated with a simple correlation function or a constant. In this case, the net effect of these better fluid characterizations seems to be a slightly higher net power. Thos change to CoolProps also improved our calculation of pumping power, thus accounting for the more substantial changes in the pumping power.

Thanks @malcolm-dsider! I requested input files from the user, although it sounds like we have a pretty good working theory at this point.


Tag Commands

The tags command should work like the RoboDanny's tags and should feature things like:

Tag Creation ✅
Tag Editing ✅
Tag Deletion ✅
Tag Info ✅
Tag Transferring ✅
Tag Aliases ❌ (will do in a future pull request)
Viewing raw tag content ❌ (will do in a future pull request)
Searching for tags ❌ (will do in a future pull request)
Claiming tag ownership from a user that left ❌ (will do in a future pull request)
Restoration of deleted tags ❌ (will do in a future pull request)
Registering tags as guild commands ❌ (will do in a future pull request)
Fuzzy matching tags ❌ (will do in a future pull request)
Change who can edit/delete/transfer tags ❌ (will do in a future pull request)

This is currently being handled in the "tags" branch.

Reopening for tracking further improvements.


Update com.jcraft:jsch to 0.1.55 for jgitflow-maven-plugin

We have experienced issues in our toolchain during release because the used version com.jcraft:jsch does not play together with our cryptographic setup anymore.
[ERROR] Failed to execute goal external.atlassian.jgitflow:jgitflow-maven-plugin:1.0-m5.1:release-start (default-cli) on project org.example.project: Error starting release: Error starting release: org.eclipse.jgit.api.errors.TransportException: git@gitlab.example.org:example/project.git: Algorithm negotiation fail

This PR follows one of the possible solutions from https://ecosystem.atlassian.net/browse/MJF-299.

you are still using jgitflow-maven-plugin? it's unmaintained for a long time. consider switching to gitflow-maven-plugin.
however, it's fine to add this dependency supporting legacy projects.

Yes, i know at least two projects which are using it.


actions.type.Time seems to break gactions push

From my model:
                {
			"name": "TimeOnlyIntent",
			"phrases": [
				"{time}"
			],
			"inputs": [
				{
					"name": "time",
					"type": {
						"alexa": "AMAZON.TIME",
						"googleAssistant": "actions.type.Time"
					}
				}
			]
		}

The emitted file:
trainingPhrases:
  - ($time '' auto=true)

The error:
{
  "error": {
    "code": 400,
    "message": "Request contains an invalid argument.",
    "details": [
      {
        "@type": "type.googleapis.com/google.rpc.BadRequest",
        "fieldViolations": [
          {
            "description": "Intent training phrase: '($time '' auto=true)' has the wrong format. SyntaxError (1:8): missing SINGLE_QUOTED_TEXT at '''"
          }
        ]
      }
    ]
  }
}

If you didn't noticed that yet, we are talking about this issue in #17.


TestCluster_Restart failing on CircleCI

Failing due a timeout.
https://circle-artifacts.com/gh/influxdb/influxdb/4795/artifacts/0/tmp/circle-artifacts.oQFPcts/test_logs.txt
=== RUN TestCluster_Restart
[metastore] 2015/08/14 22:52:08 adding new raft peer: nodeId=2 addr=<IP_ADDRESS>:46112
[metastore] 2015/08/14 22:52:08 adding new raft peer: nodeId=3 addr=<IP_ADDRESS>:39852
panic: test timed out after 8m0s
goroutine 643 [running]:
testing.funcÂ·008()
/usr/local/go/src/testing/testing.go:681 +0x12f
created by time.goFunc
/usr/local/go/src/time/sleep.go:129 +0x4b
goroutine 1 [chan receive, 7 minutes]:
testing.RunTests(0xb0a4e8, 0xcc6be0, 0x6d, 0x6d, 0xc20802b701)
/usr/local/go/src/testing/testing.go:556 +0xad6
testing.(*M).Run(0xc208046910, 0xcd1400)
/usr/local/go/src/testing/testing.go:485 +0x6c
main.main()
github.com/influxdb/influxdb/meta/_test/_testmain.go:270 +0x1d5

@jwilder

Second failure:
https://circle-artifacts.com/gh/influxdb/influxdb/4813/artifacts/1/tmp/circle-artifacts.BNjLOBk/test_logs_race.txt

For the record, still happening.
https://circle-artifacts.com/gh/influxdb/influxdb/5438/artifacts/0/tmp/circle-artifacts.GOc3MlF/test_logs.txt
cc @jwilder @benbjohnson

https://circle-artifacts.com/gh/influxdb/influxdb/5574/artifacts/0/tmp/circle-artifacts.yJ0Qnoy/test_logs.txt

This failure continues to occur fairly regularly.

Great stuff.


Added new mkdocs based documentation to the project

@alxn4 , looks great, but there are a few minor things to be fixed:

The link to the benchmarks in the Design Principles section (both README and Documentation) leads to a 404.
The headers in the README are messed up: "Feature Overview" should be an L2 header and all headers below that L3, but it is an L1 header.
The three links in the second paragraph of the Installation section of the documentation don't seem to be doing anything.
"reflect-cpp in a nutshell" seems to be a pointless header, because it consists of only one subheader "Why do we need this?" (which more accurately summarizes the text)
In the last paragraph in section on structs of the documentation, there are two links to custom classes and custom parsers - they both point back to the Github repo.


Refactor Units parser

Units parser found in https://github.com/BlueBrain/nmodl/blob/master/src/parser/unit.yy can be refactored so that we can handle better errors (for example when there is a redefinition of a unit) and to be able to encapsulate better the reading of the UNITS from the mod file.
Instead of having only the table_insertion rule and inserting everything that is parsed it could only parse the statements that come in a certain form and just calculate their values, something which is currently done based on the UnitsVisitor: https://github.com/BlueBrain/nmodl/blob/master/src/visitors/units_visitor.cpp#L38

Could you please detail the invalid constructs not currently managed by the parser? Would you like the parser to have a better error recovery to prevent failing miserably with a parse error at the first issue encountered?
Regarding the redefinition of a unit, AFAIU the parser calls nmodl::units::UnitParser::insert which throws if the unit is already defined. What would you like to improve about that?

Regarding the first point, some background. The units parser parses https://github.com/BlueBrain/nmodl/blob/master/share/nrnunits.lib which includes some unit definitions in a certain form and inserts them in a table. In the MOD files there is a different syntax to define the units. You can see more or less how is the syntax of the UNITS block in the MOD files here: https://github.com/BlueBrain/nmodl/blob/c594621da096799f5a3452549033680d3322ba4b/test/unit/visitor/units.cpp#L129.
I think my original idea was to avoid this conversion between the two syntax and make the parser work for both. However this might need some extra though since not all the units defined in the MOD file should be registered in the UnitTable. Only the ones like (unit1) = (unit2) should.
Regarding the second point, I'm not entirely sure what was my original intention. One improvement I can think of is that in this case we could also print the token information of the unit which gets redefined, like in which line is it defined.