RE: Testing Preschedule workspace ,
 I am trying to pull it up now, it's taking a long time

 -----Original Message-----
From: =09Smith, Will =20
Sent:=09Monday, July 09, 2001 11:28 AM
To:=09Semperger, Cara
Subject:=09RE: Testing Preschedule workspace

Yes, but Vish made the changes in Table Edit.  : - )

Will

 -----Original Message-----
From: =09Semperger, Cara =20
Sent:=09Monday, July 09, 2001 1:20 PM
To:=09Smith, Will
Subject:=09RE: Testing Preschedule workspace

So, this table edit that Brett is asking me to test is really from you? =20

 -----Original Message-----
From: =09Smith, Will =20
Sent:=09Monday, July 09, 2001 11:08 AM
To:=09Semperger, Cara; Atta, Asem
Cc:=09Bentley, Corry; Poston, David
Subject:=09RE: Testing Preschedule workspace

Cara,

We have recently added to Table Edit the ability to create aliases for coun=
terparties.  Also you should be able to add extended information about each=
 counterparty.  The tab in Table Edit is "Counterparty Extensions" and when=
 you select New...

 << OLE Object: Picture (Device Independent Bitmap) >>=20

Try creating a few aliases and see if they work.  Because the process takes=
 so long, you might limit it to a small number of Paths.  In the meantime, =
we will be looking into why the process is slow.

Regards,
Will

 -----Original Message-----
From: =09Semperger, Cara =20
Sent:=09Monday, July 09, 2001 12:52 PM
To:=09Smith, Will; Atta, Asem
Cc:=09Bentley, Corry; Poston, David
Subject:=09FW: Testing Preschedule workspace

When I sent this e-mail,  the Workspace error log popped up,  the total run=
ning time for the 70 rows of path confirmation was 1 hour 30 minutes, and t=
he rows that were not confirmed were ignored due to the Aliases that Schedu=
lers use.

c

 -----Original Message-----
From: =09Semperger, Cara =20
Sent:=09Monday, July 09, 2001 10:40 AM
To:=09Smith, Will; Atta, Asem
Cc:=09Bentley, Corry; Poston, David
Subject:=09Testing Preschedule workspace

Good Morning,

My target testing date today is June 18th,  I am running in Test P in Local=
 Enpower using actual data from our scheduling sheets re-arranged to meet t=
he new guidelines.

The daily deals I coded X in columns J and N,  the Month long bookouts and =
BOM bookouts I coded R. =20


What worked:

I was able to retrieve my saved workspace with all data intact. I had previ=
ously sucessfully copied and pasted my entire sheet from EXCEL to the PSW.

I was able to run the build route report with the criteria of "Starting On-=
 June 18-PaloVerde-Day of week Mask Activated-Report Changes activated." A =
check of deals actually scheduled vs. build route results showed that all d=
eals were extracted correctly from Enpower. Because I am working on closed =
dates, a cumulative test of this app will not be fully testable until produ=
ction. We are expecting to see the same functionality as the current incarn=
ation of Build route. The data extracted should be read only, time stamped,=
 and when run mulitple times additional data should be shown below previous=
ly extracted data.  The improvement we are expecting to see is the app shou=
ld not duplicate deal strips on dates that have no physical power flow. (We=
st Light Load currently does this in Start view, but not Active view)

Navigating around the scheduling sheet itself I was able to accurately exec=
ute the sort function on a single criteria at a time. Multiple sorting will=
 contunue to be done in excel, or we can do a series of single sorts in the=
 PSW to acheive the same result.

Routing deals: Will had deleted all routes for June 18th, starting me with =
a clean slate.  I made every path be for DAY. I was unable to confirm total=
 unrouted MWH, as the real time position manager does not seem to be functi=
oning in TESTP. The routing appeared to take 19 minutes with the status bar=
 showing steady progress during that time. This time is 15-17 minutes longe=
r than current speed using the Excel Macro system we have now. The error li=
st gave me a row by row description of what did not route, a very useful to=
ol.  OK was visible on all rows that the PSW believed that it had routed. I=
 had difficulty checking the routing results, as I kept getting BDE errors =
in Scheduling after routing had occurred (Local Enpower). Scheduling kept s=
tarting up in 1899.  I was unable to login to TestP through Terminal server=
 2, but was able to in Terminal Server 5. The results there were very encou=
raging! Most routing was done, and a spot check of deals shows that they we=
re routed properly. The deals that were not routed appear to be due to a us=
er error of deal number duplication in the sheet. This is consistent with w=
hat I would expect. I will further evaluate routing ability with our more c=
omplicated paths later. This routing was very easy, a large point with on p=
eak non shaped deals only.



Things I did not expect that I liked:

When I highlight a group of cells in Build Route, it stays highlighted when=
 I move up to the scheduling sheet to highlight a comparison group of cells=
.  This is very handy for double checking Build route against the scheduler=
's sheet.



What does not appear to be working at this time:

The physical or not physical flag of path does not seem to be showing up pr=
operly in routing.

Path Confirmation:  The running time appeared to be over one hour for one s=
heet, only 70 rows of the sheet being flagged for insertion into confirmati=
on. This current speed will not be sufficient to work in production. Also, =
many rows that were flagged for confirmation were not imported, and I canno=
t find an error log to help understand why deals were not imported to path =
confirmation.
When the path confirmation task was finished,  the application simply froze=
.  The status bar was no longer visible, leading me to believe that it was =
done, however the app was not able to be saved or closed or examined furthe=
r.


My conclusions:

The build route and routing functions work well enough to use in production=
, the copy-paste function works well for the West desk per our connectivity=
 issues.

Path Confirmation is not functioning at this point, and appears to be blowi=
ng up the app. No data was visible for June 18th even after the PSW ran thr=
ough its import function.


Please let me know when the issues I have named have been addressed and are=
 ready for further testing.

Thanks

Cara
503/464-3814
will.smith@enron.com