Closed cjyetman closed 6 months ago
💯
#> Error in base::tryCatch(base::withCallingHandlers({: 1 assertions failed: #> * Variable 'data$isin': must contain only valid ISINs, but has #> * additional elements "US78467KA#42", "US85255AA*13", "NOR6778@AB29", #> * "US048303E#47", "US313855F*48", "US372460A#28", "CA820439A#42", #> * "CA008474E@39", "US941848D#79", "US524908@431", "US00253#AB60", #> * "US615369A@49", "US893578A@31", "US57555*AD16", "BEB7227*AB60", #> * "US031100A@92", "US628464A#60", "US10468*AE44", …, "US758750B*36", #> * and "US15135#BQ49".
AFAIK, those are valid ISINs, they are just ISINs of private securities (venture capital, and things like that). Had a look at this when I was looking into Private equity, it's sorta cool that we have them actually! I would loosen the restrictions on the expectation there personally (but maybe ask Nick for a second opinion?)
But in any case, TM doesn't publicize that it can cover private equity, so I think it's totally fine to just filter them out.
#> Error in base::tryCatch(base::withCallingHandlers({: 4 assertions failed:
#> * Variable 'data$technology': must contain only valid technology
#> * names, but has additional element "ICE Hydrogen_HDV".
#> * Variable 'data$ald_production_unit': must contain only valid
#> * production units, but has additional elements "# vehicles", "dwt
#> * km", "t cement", "t coal", and "t steel".
#> * Variable 'data$ald_emissions_factor_unit': must contain only valid
#> * emissions factor units, but has additional elements "tCO2/dwt km",
#> * "tCO2/km", "tCO2/pkm", "tCO2/tkm", "tCO2e/GJ", "tCO2e/MWh", "tCO2e/t
#> * cement", "tCO2e/t coal", and "tCO2e/t steel".
#> * Variable 'data$technology': must contain only valid technology names
#> * for HDV, but has additional elements %s.
This part is pretty important. Could be coming from two places, either:
tCO2/ km
-> tCO2/km
)tCO2/dwt km
)I guess we have a decision to make regarding:
pacta.scenario.preparation
and pacta.data.validation
to expect what is heremasterdata_debt
to match units expected by pacta.scenario.preparation
and pacta.data.validation
Of the two, I guess I would probably prefer the former, which will require a PR to: https://github.com/RMI-PACTA/pacta.scenario.preparation But happy to do either, thoughts @cjyetman @AlexAxthelm ?
Hopefully, we just need to adjust the strings themselves, and don't need to change the actual data/ assumptions at all.
This seems to just be an issue with HDV, which I don't really use at all (it's still not supported in r2dii.*
) so I don't have any useful feedback there.
What technology name were you using for HDV
here?
#> * Variable 'data$technology': must contain only valid technology names
#> * for HDV, but has additional elements %s.
relevant fixes in pacta.data.validation:
relevant fix in pacta.data.preparation
validation of financial_data
has been removed from this PR, and future intended implementation is tracked here
closes #18
Most validation errors originally found (below) have been resolved. Validation of
financial_data
andabcd_flags_equity
has been removed for now and will be added in the future.investigation issues:
relevant fixes in pacta.data.validation:
relevant fix in pacta.data.preparation
validation of
financial_data
andabcd_flags_equity
has been removed from this PR, and future intended implementation is tracked herecurrently, a few of the validation checks fail using 2023Q4 config