Version Checks (indicate both or one)
Issue Description
Potentially related #2100 .
In the lines here the input files are manually constructed instead of relying on snakemake.input. This can lead to an inconsistency, if e.g. planning_horizon is overwritten in a scenario to a value that is not in the config:
https://github.com/PyPSA/pypsa-eur/blob/master/scripts/make_global_summary.py#L46-L54
e.g. config defines planning_horizon: [2030] but scenario defines planning_horizon: [2040]. In that case the snakemake workflow will produce 2030 for the files (incorrect), but the script is looking for 2040 (correct).
As far as I can tell the problem lies with using config here directly, instead of the overwritten config:
https://github.com/PyPSA/pypsa-eur/blob/master/rules/postprocess.smk#L307
Reproducible Example
Expected Behavior
Installed Versions
Details
Replace this line.
Version Checks (indicate both or one)
I have confirmed this bug exists on the lastest release of PyPSA-Eur.
I have confirmed this bug exists on the current
masterbranch of PyPSA-Eur.Issue Description
Potentially related #2100 .
In the lines here the input files are manually constructed instead of relying on
snakemake.input. This can lead to an inconsistency, if e.g.planning_horizonis overwritten in a scenario to a value that is not in the config:https://github.com/PyPSA/pypsa-eur/blob/master/scripts/make_global_summary.py#L46-L54
e.g. config defines
planning_horizon: [2030]but scenario definesplanning_horizon: [2040]. In that case thesnakemakeworkflow will produce2030for the files (incorrect), but the script is looking for2040(correct).As far as I can tell the problem lies with using
confighere directly, instead of the overwritten config:https://github.com/PyPSA/pypsa-eur/blob/master/rules/postprocess.smk#L307
Reproducible Example
-Expected Behavior
Installed Versions
Details
Replace this line.