Update `lablcc` labels by chris-ashe · Pull Request #4266 · ukaea/PROCESS

chris-ashe · 2026-05-21T09:27:10Z

Description

Checklist

I confirm that I have completed the following checks:

My changes follow the PROCESS style guide
I have justified any large differences in the regression tests caused by this pull request in the comments.
I have added new tests where appropriate for the changes I have made.
If I have had to change any existing unit or integration tests, I have justified this change in the pull request comments.
If I have made documentation changes, I have checked they render correctly.
I have added documentation for my change, if appropriate.

…d numerics.py

Copilot

Pull request overview

This PR updates the human-readable constraint labels (lablcc) and a few constraint registration/docstring strings to use clearer terminology and more standard fusion-physics notation (subscripts, angle brackets, etc.) in PROCESS’s constraint reporting/output.

Changes:

Refreshed process/data_structure/numerics.py:lablcc strings to more descriptive/symbolic labels.
Updated constraint registration strings in process/core/solver/constraints.py (e.g., volt-second unit label) and tweaked some docstring text/notation.
Simplified constraint 51’s implementation to use vs_plasma_ramp_required directly.

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated 2 comments.

File	Description
`process/data_structure/numerics.py`	Updates the `lablcc` constraint label list to newer, more descriptive/symbolic names.
`process/core/solver/constraints.py`	Adjusts selected constraint registration strings and docstrings (including volt-second unit labeling) and refactors constraint 51 to use `vs_plasma_ramp_required`.

Comments suppressed due to low confidence (1)

process/data_structure/numerics.py:599

Constraints 69–71 are not registered in process/core/solver/constraints.py (the registry jumps from 68 to 72), but lablcc still provides labels for them (with # REMOVED). Consider using a consistent placeholder like "NOT USED"/blank here to reflect that these IDs are intentionally unavailable, and to reduce confusion when reading constraint listings.

        "p_sep < psep_kallenbach divertor ",  # REMOVED
        "Separatrix temp consistency      ",  # REMOVED
        "Separatrix density consistency   ",  # REMOVED

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

clmould · 2026-05-22T13:36:18Z

+        "Vessel helium concentration limit",  # REMOVED
+        "Pₛₑₚ / R₀ upper limit             ",
+        "TF coil leg rad width lower limit",  # REMOVED
+        "TF coil leg rad width lower limit",  # REMOVED


I think this is a good point here, as it is misleading to have proper initial values for constraints that don't exist, so replacing them with a 'NOT USED' placeholder would be good

clmould · 2026-05-22T12:01:52Z

@@ -1194,15 +1194,11 @@ def constraint_equation_50(constraint_registration, data):
 def constraint_equation_51(constraint_registration, data):
    """Equation to enforce startup flux = available startup flux

-    vs_plasma_res_ramp: resistive losses in startup V-s (Wb)
-    vs_plasma_ind_ramp: internal and external plasma inductance V-s (Wb))
+    vs_plasma_ramp_required: Required flux swing for startup (Wb)
    vs_cs_pf_total_ramp: total flux swing for startup (Wb)
    """
    return eq(
-        abs(
-            data_structure.physics_variables.vs_plasma_res_ramp
-            + data_structure.physics_variables.vs_plasma_ind_ramp
-        ),
+        abs(data_structure.physics_variables.vs_plasma_ramp_required),
        data.pf_coil.vs_cs_pf_total_ramp,


I agree with this comment

codecov-commenter · 2026-05-21T09:35:26Z

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 50.13%. Comparing base (11881e8) to head (850799e).
⚠️ Report is 3 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #4266   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   50.13%   50.13%           
=======================================
  Files         151      151           
  Lines       29343    29349    +6     
=======================================
+ Hits        14710    14714    +4     
- Misses      14633    14635    +2

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

clmould

My review for now, but will get a modeller to check as well as they know the constraints and labels better than I do!

clmould · 2026-05-22T12:01:52Z

@@ -1194,15 +1194,11 @@ def constraint_equation_50(constraint_registration, data):
 def constraint_equation_51(constraint_registration, data):
    """Equation to enforce startup flux = available startup flux

-    vs_plasma_res_ramp: resistive losses in startup V-s (Wb)
-    vs_plasma_ind_ramp: internal and external plasma inductance V-s (Wb))
+    vs_plasma_ramp_required: Required flux swing for startup (Wb)
    vs_cs_pf_total_ramp: total flux swing for startup (Wb)
    """
    return eq(
-        abs(
-            data_structure.physics_variables.vs_plasma_res_ramp
-            + data_structure.physics_variables.vs_plasma_ind_ramp
-        ),
+        abs(data_structure.physics_variables.vs_plasma_ramp_required),
        data.pf_coil.vs_cs_pf_total_ramp,


I agree with this comment

clmould · 2026-05-22T12:07:54Z

-            data_structure.physics_variables.vs_plasma_res_ramp
-            + data_structure.physics_variables.vs_plasma_ind_ramp
-        ),
+        abs(data_structure.physics_variables.vs_plasma_ramp_required),


Why has this been changed from vs_plasma_res_ramp + vs_plasma_ind_ramp to vs_plasma_ramp_required ?

As vs_plasma_ramp_required is the sum of the two. Thus prevents useless extra calculations and room for errors

clmould · 2026-05-22T13:36:18Z

+        "Vessel helium concentration limit",  # REMOVED
+        "Pₛₑₚ / R₀ upper limit             ",
+        "TF coil leg rad width lower limit",  # REMOVED
+        "TF coil leg rad width lower limit",  # REMOVED


I think this is a good point here, as it is misleading to have proper initial values for constraints that don't exist, so replacing them with a 'NOT USED' placeholder would be good

clmould · 2026-05-22T13:44:32Z

+        "TF turn dimension upper limit              ",
+        "Cryogenic plant power upper limit           ",
+        "TF WP vertical strain upper limit    ",
+        "CS current to copper area upper limit   ",


Does the word 'fraction' or 'ratio' need to go in here to replace the '/' from before? Or keep the / like in line 603 ?

clmould · 2026-05-22T13:47:52Z

+        "CS Tresca yield criterion upper limit     ",
+        "Pₛₑₚ > Pₗₕ + Pₐᵤₓ consistency           ",
+        "TF quench temperature < temp_croco_quench_max",
+        "TF current/copper area < Max    ",


Other lines are now using 'upper limit' instead of 'max' - would this make sense here too for consistency?

I have left those for the breakout PR after the CroCo refactor goes in

Co-authored-by: clmould <86794332+clmould@users.noreply.github.com>

…s.py and constraints.py

j-a-foster

Everything looks good to me.

Copilot

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated 2 comments.

Comments suppressed due to low confidence (2)

process/data_structure/numerics.py:544

This label embeds an inequality (Pₛₑₚ > Pₗₕ) even though the solver output already includes the constraint symbol (this one is implemented as >=). To avoid contradictory or duplicated information in tables/logs, consider removing the > from the label (or use the same operator as the registered constraint).

        "Burn time lower limit            ",
        "NBI decay lengths consistency    ",
        "Pₛₑₚ > Pₗₕ consistency    ",
        "Net electric power lower limit   ",

process/data_structure/numerics.py:602

Same issue as constraint 15’s label: embedding Pₛₑₚ > Pₗₕ + Pₐᵤₓ in the name duplicates the separate constraint symbol column and uses a strict > while the constraint itself is implemented as >=. Consider removing the inequality from the label (or matching the operator exactly).

        "NOT USED",  # REMOVED
        "CS Tresca yield criterion upper limit     ",
        "Pₛₑₚ > Pₗₕ + Pₐᵤₓ consistency           ",
        "TF quench temperature < temp_croco_quench_max",

        "Electron power balance           ",
-        "Density upper limit              ",
-        "(Epsilon x beta-pol) upper limit ",
+        "Electron density upper limit (nₑ<) ",


 def constraint_equation_51(constraint_registration, data):
    """Equation to enforce startup flux = available startup flux

-    vs_plasma_res_ramp: resistive losses in startup V-s (Wb)
-    vs_plasma_ind_ramp: internal and external plasma inductance V-s (Wb))
+    vs_plasma_ramp_required: Required flux swing for startup (Wb)
    vs_cs_pf_total_ramp: total flux swing for startup (Wb)
    """
    return eq(
-        abs(
-            data_structure.physics_variables.vs_plasma_res_ramp
-            + data_structure.physics_variables.vs_plasma_ind_ramp
-        ),
+        abs(data_structure.physics_variables.vs_plasma_ramp_required),
        data.pf_coil.vs_cs_pf_total_ramp,


clmould · 2026-05-22T15:48:55Z

        "Neutron wall load upper limit    ",
        "Fusion power upper limit         ",
-        "Toroidal field 1/R consistency   ",
+        "NOT USED",  # REMOVED


I think just having NOT USED is enough, so the REMOVED can be removed now

…undant comments

chris-ashe added 4 commits May 20, 2026 15:13

Update lablcc labels for consistency and clarity

87a11a5

Fix lablcc labels for consistency and clarity in constraints.py

6f278ea

Update lablcc labels for clarity and consistency in numerics.py

fd60921

Update lablcc labels for clarity and consistency in constraints.py an…

b42f9b5

…d numerics.py

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings May 21, 2026 09:27

chris-ashe requested a review from a team as a code owner May 21, 2026 09:27

chris-ashe added the Documentation Improvements or additions to documentation label May 21, 2026

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of chris-ashe May 21, 2026 09:27 View session

Copilot AI reviewed May 21, 2026

View reviewed changes

clmould self-assigned this May 21, 2026

clmould requested changes May 22, 2026

View reviewed changes

clmould requested a review from j-a-foster May 22, 2026 13:52

chris-ashe and others added 2 commits May 22, 2026 14:55

Update process/data_structure/numerics.py

2a1bc8a

Co-authored-by: clmould <86794332+clmould@users.noreply.github.com>

Update lablcc labels for clarity and remove unused entries in numeric…

6aac68a

…s.py and constraints.py

chris-ashe requested review from clmould and Copilot May 22, 2026 14:14

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of chris-ashe May 22, 2026 14:15 View session

j-a-foster approved these changes May 22, 2026

View reviewed changes

Copilot AI reviewed May 22, 2026

View reviewed changes

clmould requested changes May 22, 2026

View reviewed changes

Refactor lablcc labels for consistency in numerics.py by removing red…

850799e

…undant comments

clmould self-requested a review May 22, 2026 16:10

clmould approved these changes May 22, 2026

View reviewed changes

clmould merged commit c0119fe into main May 22, 2026
10 of 11 checks passed

clmould deleted the update_lablcc_labels branch May 22, 2026 16:23

Conversation

chris-ashe commented May 21, 2026

Description

Checklist

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Reviewed changes

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

codecov-commenter commented May 21, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

clmould left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

j-a-foster left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

5 participants

codecov-commenter commented May 21, 2026 •

edited

Loading