- added shuffling to all curved based clearing algos

[kim-mskw]

Pull Request

Related Issue

Closes #387

Description

see assigned issue

Changes Proposed

• shuffle orders for supply and demand before sorting it

Testing

• tested it with example-02c without learning as there are multiple identical units presents
• in comparison to without the shuffling the profit is now split up between all identical units as it should
• see issue

Checklist

Please check all applicable items:

• [x] Code changes are sufficiently documented (docstrings, inline comments, doc folder updates)
• [x] New unit tests added for new features or bug fixes
• [x] Existing tests pass with the changes
• [x] Reinforcement learning examples are operational (for DRL-related changes)
• [x] Code tested with both local and Docker databases
• [x] Code follows project style guidelines and best practices
• [x] Changes are backwards compatible, or deprecation notices added
• [ ] New dependencies added to pyproject.toml
• [x] A note for the release notes doc/release_notes.rst of the upcoming release is included
• [x] Consent to release this PR's code under the GNU Affero General Public License v3.0

Additional Notes (if applicable)

[Any additional information, concerns, or areas you want reviewers to focus on]

Screenshots (if applicable)

BEFORE:

AFTER:

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 75.00000% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 78.18%. Comparing base (fab0b10) to head (5baadd2).

Files	Patch %	Lines
assume/markets/clearing_algorithms/contracts.py	33.33%	2 Missing :warning:

Additional details and impacted files

```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## main #388 +/- ## ========================================== - Coverage 78.20% 78.18% -0.02% ========================================== Files 44 44 Lines 5179 5185 +6 ========================================== + Hits 4050 4054 +4 - Misses 1129 1131 +2 ``` | [Flag](https://app.codecov.io/gh/assume-framework/assume/pull/388/flags?src=pr&el=flags&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=assume-framework) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [pytest](https://app.codecov.io/gh/assume-framework/assume/pull/388/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=assume-framework) | `78.18% <75.00%> (-0.02%)` | :arrow_down: | Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. [Click here](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/carryforward-flags?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=assume-framework#carryforward-flags-in-the-pull-request-comment) to find out more.

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[kim-mskw]

It does what I wanted it to do, yet the cash flow is now way higher for all power plants in sum. Looks like something is not working as intended in the rejection?

[kim-mskw]

apparently it was a problem of the inplace method