format scenario data for p4b input

[jacobvjk]

depends on: RMI-PACTA/pacta.scenario.data.preparation#59

• gains script format_scenarios_for_p4b.R which formats the prepared scenarios for use in P4B
• selects the relevant scenarios based on inherited scenarios_to_include from config, which is determined by the config_name (i.e. the timestamp of the data preparation)
• follows the logic used in https://github.com/RMI-PACTA/workflow.data.preparation/blob/9beb13c4bdce7937bcfe327e8e12d75599090dcc/run_pacta_data_preparation.R#L267 as much as possible
• storing the files p4b_scenarios_YYYY.csv and p4b_ei_scenarios_YYYY.csv in the output_path does not interfere with workflow.data.preparation, because scenario files in that workflow are specifically targeted following the source_YYYY.csv naming convention, see https://github.com/RMI-PACTA/workflow.data.preparation/blob/9beb13c4bdce7937bcfe327e8e12d75599090dcc/run_pacta_data_preparation.R#L142 specifying scenario filenames in the config as shown here: https://github.com/RMI-PACTA/workflow.data.preparation/blob/9beb13c4bdce7937bcfe327e8e12d75599090dcc/config.yml#L176
• uses a common final_year as a cutoff for the scenarios. final_year is determined as the maximum year across featured scenario sources. For the preparation of 2023 scenarios, this is 2050. Values post 2050 seem a bit uncertain in GECO, so this was determined as the best way forward for now.

NOTE:

• The validation could be improved

[jdhoffa]

I agree that we should avoid polluting main.R too much, but it's fine to get the logic in there while in draft to get things working, and then we can sort out how we want to actually organize everything afterward.

Perhaps the 3 of us can have a discussion on the best way to approach this?

[jacobvjk]

I agree that we should avoid polluting main.R too much, but it's fine to get the logic in there while in draft to get things working, and then we can sort out how we want to actually organize everything afterward.

Perhaps the 3 of us can have a discussion on the best way to approach this?

yea, we had an initial discussion last week but now that the code is functional, I would appreciate a follow up for a decision. I want to deliver the p4b scenarios this sprint and while I have them prepared locally, I would feel better about using the final script for that.

[github-actions]

Docker build status

commit_time	git_sha	image
2024-05-28T10:27:07Z	7563101	ghcr.io/rmi-pacta/workflow.scenario.preparation:pr-58

[cjyetman]

I wasn't expecting it to require so much code. Might make sense to put it in a separate script source it, same as the separate scenario scripts.

[jdhoffa]

lookth good

[cjyetman]

a bit of a rubber stamp on the changes made since I last reviewed this, but I trust this works