-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 563
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
Issue 3339 dead lithium #3485
Issue 3339 dead lithium #3485
Conversation
Check out this pull request on See visual diffs & provide feedback on Jupyter Notebooks. Powered by ReviewNB |
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #3485 +/- ##
========================================
Coverage 99.58% 99.58%
========================================
Files 256 256
Lines 20119 20126 +7
========================================
+ Hits 20036 20043 +7
Misses 83 83 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good Simon, thanks! Just a couple of small comments.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I have noticed that both Plated lithium capacity and Intercalated lithium capacity have units of Ah
rather than A.h
(that's a legacy thing, not introduced in this issue). Could you change it to A.h
so it is consistent with the other variable names?
CHANGELOG.md
Outdated
@@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ | |||
|
|||
## Bug fixes | |||
|
|||
- The irreversible plating model now increments `f"{Domain} dead lithium concentration [mol.m-3]"`, not `f"{Domain} lithium plating concentration [mol.m-3]"` as it did previously. ([#3485](https://github.com/pybamm-team/PyBaMM/pull/3485)) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can you move this to the unreleased version?
Sorry for the delay on getting back to this. CHANGELOG needs fixing as we updated develop, happy for this to be merged once that is fixed. |
Ruff is now failing, saying that |
I think @Saransh-cpp fixed it in #3519 |
Yes, please ignore the example notebooks and ruff failure. I will look into it this weekend. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sorry for all the trouble, @DrSOKane. Everything should work now once you merge in develop and resolve the conflicts!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Just a small change in the CHANGELOG as an entry is duplicate (see the suggestion).
CHANGELOG.md
Outdated
@@ -4,6 +4,8 @@ | |||
|
|||
- Fixed bug that made identical Experiment steps with different end times crash ([#3516](https://github.com/pybamm-team/PyBaMM/pull/3516)) | |||
- Fixed bug in calculation of theoretical energy that made it very slow ([#3506](https://github.com/pybamm-team/PyBaMM/pull/3506)) | |||
- The irreversible plating model now increments `f"{Domain} dead lithium concentration [mol.m-3]"`, not `f"{Domain} lithium plating concentration [mol.m-3]"` as it did previously. ([#3485](https://github.com/pybamm-team/PyBaMM/pull/3485)) | |||
- Fixed a bug where the JaxSolver would fails when using GPU support with no input parameters ([#3423](https://github.com/pybamm-team/PyBaMM/pull/3423)) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
- Fixed a bug where the JaxSolver would fails when using GPU support with no input parameters ([#3423](https://github.com/pybamm-team/PyBaMM/pull/3423)) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
How is this a dupicate?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That one made it in the release, see line 29 of the CHANGELOG
Thanks Simon, and sorry for all the back and forth! |
* fixed tests * Added graphite half-cell parameter files * Revert "Added graphite half-cell parameter files" This reverts commit 78001e8. * Revert "fixed tests" This reverts commit cf53ff1. * ruff * changelog * coverage * Fixed minor error in example notebook * Removed duplicate entry from changelog
Description
The irreversible plating model now increases the
f"{Domain} dead lithium concentration [mol.m-3]"
variable, not thef"{Domain} lithium plating concentration [mol.m-3]"
variable as it did previously. Thef"Loss of lithium to {domain} plating [mol]"
andf"Loss of capacity to {domain} plating [A.h]"
variables are unchanged because they include both plated lithium and dead lithium.Fixes #3339