Johannes Röder

My opinion and comments: Q1: I am against that the `min` attribute leads to a nonconvex flow (Note that there is also the working case of bidirectional flows with `min=-1`)....

Regarding the general structure, intuitively, the nested structure makes also more sense to me. I mean what would be the alternatives? Maybe, we could collect the alternatives with the pros...

I am wondering, if we introduce the subpackage `flows/_shared`, we should probably shift the code from the module `_options` into the two new modules `investment.py` and `non_convex.py`. ' I think...

There will be still duplication of the block docstrings for attributes/constraints that can be used in all blocks, e.g. `min`, etc., right? I mean that is not a problem. The...

> > I see two reasons against that: > > 1. There is investment into storages. > > 2. The current solution having "_shared" is not ideal and might not...

> The style is not 100 % customisable any more, but the order of the documented functions can be customised. I continued with the [doc of InvestNonConvexFlow](https://oemof-solph.readthedocs.io/en/feature-restucture_flow/reference/oemof.solph.flow.html#module-oemof.solph.flows._invest_non_convex_flow_block) as an example....

I remember that @uvchik talked about deleting these constraints last year or so, as they were not implemented fully/probably/correctly. Probably, this is a left-over. So, these lines should be deleted.

I also think that is a good idea. To finish all the restructuring, e.g. especially make all docstrings consistent, this could be done via separate PRs. And then other features...

Hi Philipp, thank you for opening this PR! Looks very interesting! However, it would be really nice, if you provide further descriptions of your component and some more details, like...

Hi Philipp, are you still working on that? If you have additional attributes eg like pressure at each Bus, how do you plan to connect the bus to the rest...