Do you want to request a feature or report a bug?
Feature
What is the current behavior?
The UCTE importer/exporter follows the rules defined in the UCTE-DEF specification format. But this specification is really old and a new ENTSO-E document seems to be the reference now.
What is the motivation / use case for changing the behavior?
If some TSO/RSC exchange files following the new rules, we should be able to correctly handle these files. For now, I see at least differences in the country code (D2, D4, D6, KS). The rule for order code has been updated in #1128 and #1166.
Please tell us about your environment:
PowSyBl Version: ...
OS Version: ...
Other information (e.g. detailed explanation, stacktraces, related issues, suggestions how to fix, links for us to have context, eg. stackoverflow, spectrum, etc)
murgeyseb
commented
4 years ago
Do you want to request a feature or report a bug? Feature
What is the current behavior? The UCTE importer/exporter follows the rules defined in the UCTE-DEF specification format. But this specification is really old and a new ENTSO-E document seems to be the reference now.
What is the motivation / use case for changing the behavior? If some TSO/RSC exchange files following the new rules, we should be able to correctly handle these files. For now, I see at least differences in the country code (D2, D4, D6, KS). The rule for order code has been updated in #1128 and #1166.
Please tell us about your environment:
Other information (e.g. detailed explanation, stacktraces, related issues, suggestions how to fix, links for us to have context, eg. stackoverflow, spectrum, etc)
(if a question doesn't apply, you can delete it)