Remove old ReEDS example #261
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #261 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 74.80% 72.68% -2.13%
==========================================
Files 76 76
Lines 10468 10468
Branches 1211 1211
==========================================
- Hits 7831 7609 -222
- Misses 2146 2369 +223
+ Partials 491 490 -1
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
github-actions bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 11, 2025
Remove old ReEDS example
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The ReEDS code was removed from reVX in #177, but the example was left behind and remained in the documentation, causing some confusion (see NREL/reV#570). In this PR, we deprecate the example corresponding to the previously deprecated code