Configuration Priority Issue: API vs. config.ini

[phumthep]

Issue Description:

Currently, our power system model classes source their parameters from both the user_config.ini file and API arguments. The default behavior is to use user_config.ini, but API arguments can override these settings.

Strengths of Current Setup:

• Offers multiple ways to configure the model
• Provides a baseline configuration for users

Weaknesses of Current Setup:

• Unclear which parameter source takes precedence, leading to unexpected behavior
• Hard to trace the origin of parameter values, leading to debugging difficulty

Tasks

• [ ] Have a single Source of Truth. Choose either user_config.ini or API arguments as the primary configuration source. API arguments would be the logical choice if the software will be integrated into other projects. This provides a predictable and centralized configuration point.
• [ ] Find a way to validate API Parameters. Enforce stricter validation of API parameters to ensure they are within acceptable ranges and of the correct data types.
• [ ] Logging parameters. Implement logging to track the source and values of parameters used in each model run. This aids in debugging.
• [ ] Configuration Class/Object: (Optional)? Introduce a dedicated configuration class or object to manage parameters, validation, and loading from various sources. This would improve code organization and maintainability.

Additional Notes:

• Before making changes, assess the impact on existing users. If a major change is needed, consider a deprecation period for the old behavior.
• Thoroughly test any changes to the configuration mechanism to ensure correctness and avoid regressions.
• Update documentation to clearly explain the new configuration approach, including any changes to API usage or the user_config.ini structure.
• Someone has any other thoughts?