Fix: power capacity does not need to be mandatory

[BelhsanHmida]

Description

• Let storage scheduling continue when a flex-model omits power-capacity.
• Infer the symmetric device-level power limit from the greatest of consumption-capacity and production-capacity when both directional capacities are configured.
• Keep the existing site-power-capacity fallback after the directional-capacity fallback.
• Clarified the scheduling metadata for power-capacity, consumption-capacity, and production-capacity.
• Added changelog entry.

Look & Feel

N/A. This is scheduler behavior and documentation only.

How to test

pytest -k "device_power_capacity_uses_greatest_directional_capacity_before_site_fallback"

Manual check:

• With no power-capacity, production_capacity = 300 kW, and consumption_capacity = 700 kW, _get_device_power_capacity returned a 96-step capacity series whose values are close to 0.7 MW.
• The method logged the expected missing power-capacity warning instead of raising the previous error.

Related Items

Closes SeitaBV/ems#210

---

Sign-off

• I agree to contribute to the project under Apache 2 License.
• To the best of my knowledge, the proposed patch is not based on code under GPL or other license that is incompatible with FlexMeasures

[Flix6x]

But this field also "contributes" if the production-capacity field is not configured, right? And that behaviour seems already described under power-capacity. I suggest reverting this change:

Suggested change

	description="""Device-level power constraint on consumption. How much power can be drawn by this asset.
	If ``power-capacity`` is omitted and ``production-capacity`` is also configured, this field contributes to the inferred symmetric device-level power limit. [#minimum_overlap]_""",
	description="""Device-level power constraint on consumption. How much power can be drawn by this asset. [#minimum_overlap]_""",

[Flix6x]

Actually, wouldn't you as a user expect that if you only define a consumption-capacity, that the production-capacity is automatically assumed to be zero? And vice versa.

(But if neither is set, they are not both assumed to be zero.)

I'm interested to hear your opinion.

[BelhsanHmida]

Good point. I reverted the extra sentence here and kept the fallback behavior described under power-capacity.

On the missing opposite direction: I agree that if consumption capacity is set, treating the production capacity as zero sounds intuitive. should this be implement this here?

[Flix6x]

Only when both are defined?

[BelhsanHmida]

After some thought, I think “both” is too narrow here. Do you think we should infer the fallback power-capacity from the largest provided consumption-capacity or production-capacity when either one is set, and only fall back to site-power-capacity if neither is set?