IIDM Validation Util rework

annetill commented 4 months ago

Please check if the PR fulfills these requirements

[X] The commit message follows our guidelines
[ ] Tests for the changes have been added (for bug fixes / features)
[ ] Docs have been added / updated (for bug fixes / features)

Does this PR already have an issue describing the problem?

No

What kind of change does this PR introduce?

Quality / Feature

What is the current behavior?

What is the new behavior (if this is a feature change)?

Public methods have as argument the validation level and not the boolean that says if we want to log an error or an exception. This will lead to adaptations in the network-store. C++ implementation must be checked.
When loss factor is not defined, the network falls in EQUIPMENT validation level.

Does this PR introduce a breaking change or deprecate an API?

[X] Yes
[ ] No

If yes, please check if the following requirements are fulfilled

[X] The Breaking Change or Deprecated label has been added
[X] The migration steps are described in the following section

What changes might users need to make in their application due to this PR? (migration steps)

The ValidationUtil utility class was reworked to ensure that the validation is well performed using a validation level. The impacts are the following:

Except the validate(…) method, all the methods having boolean throwException as a parameter are no more accessible. Instead, you should use the method taking the parameters ValidationLevel validation, ReportNode reportNode. The validation level (which generally corresponds to the network's minimal validation level) will determine if, in case of error, it should be reported in reportNode or if an exception should be thrown. Furthermore, methods having only the ValidationLevel validationLevel parameter now take ReportNode reportNode as an additional parameter.

For instance, you could not use the following methods anymore:

checkActivePowerSetpoint(Validable validable, double activePowerSetpoint, boolean throwException)
checkActivePowerSetpoint(Validable validable, double activePowerSetpoint, ValidationLevel validationLevel)

Instead, you should use: