Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Company card #101

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Dec 2, 2024
Merged

Company card #101

merged 2 commits into from
Dec 2, 2024

Conversation

Erikvv
Copy link
Member

@Erikvv Erikvv commented Nov 29, 2024

No description provided.

Initial fields for company-card
</div>
<div className="form-message">
<Text>
Verbruik achter de meter. Inclusief verbruik van eigen opwek. Exclusief verbruik van laadpalen.
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@GillisHommen is dit correct als toelichting?

Copy link
Contributor

@GillisHommen GillisHommen Dec 2, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ja dit is correct idd, wbt verbruik achter de meter. En ook wbt laadpalen, maar dat doet me eigenlijk denken dat we die 'laadpalen' optie voor nu ook beter kunnen weglaten; het verbruik daarvan zit namelijk al in het brutoverbruik.

Alternatief zou nog kunnen zijn dat we 'levering' laten invullen ipv bruto verbruik. Maakt voor de laadpalen op zich niet uit, maar levering is een getal dat ze van een factuur kunnen aflezen, bruto verbruik niet.

Nog een variant is om totale levering en totale teruglevering te laten invullen, samen met geïnstalleerd vermogen PV... Met het 'risico' dat men inconsistende getallen kan invullen. (een combinatie van drie getallen die niet echt mogelijk/feasible is)

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Voor nu laadpalen uitgecomment. Als we tot een beter inzicht komen kunnen we het aanpassen.

@Erikvv
Copy link
Member Author

Erikvv commented Dec 2, 2024

Reminder client.jar hercompileren

@GillisHommen
Copy link
Contributor

GillisHommen commented Dec 2, 2024

misschien dan ook in de comment van het brutoverbruik niet meer de laadpaal noemen

[edit] Nevermind, zie dat je dat al gedaan hebt (Y)

Copy link
Collaborator

@macano macano left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Some comments but looks good to merge.

@@ -58,12 +58,21 @@ data class Pilot(
}

// Extension function for List replacement
private fun <AssetType> List<AssetType>.replaceAt(index: Int, newAsset: AssetType): List<AssetType> {
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can it be renamed more generic as "SimulationElementType" to keep it strong typed? So the company can be included.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I thought there was a bug but I was mistaken. I shouldn't have done this change together.

AFAIK the code is still as type-safe as it was before.

I don't see the point of putting all the Pilot properties in the same type hierarchy.

@Erikvv Erikvv merged commit 0010aad into main Dec 2, 2024
@Erikvv Erikvv deleted the bedrijfsCard branch December 4, 2024 15:27
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants