Add explicit asset timeframe partitions

[datejada]

This PR unifies the default value of the partitions for the representatives and the timeframe. So, if no data is defined in the partition files, the default partition is uniform of value 1.

Related issues

Closes #1009

Checklist

• I am following the contributing guidelines

• Tests are passing

• Lint workflow is passing

• Docs were updated and workflow is passing

[github-actions]

Benchmark Results

Benchmark in progress...

[datejada]

@abelsiqueira so, from the benchmark we can see the performance problem when we have several representatives and we use the constraints over clustered year (inter-temporal constraints) by defining the timeframe partitions.

The PR #1013 has the equivalent EU case study files in version 0.10.4 to have a reference.

Also, Joaquim and Oscar recommended PProf.jl find type instabilities and bottlenecks in the code. I will give it a try on a different PR.

I will keep you posted

[abelsiqueira]

Thanks, small simple change, pre-approved.
It is a bit concerning that this doesn't break the tests at all. It's either not affecting anything, or affecting things that don't change anything. Either way, it's another thing we have to create tests for.
Maybe we modify Norse to remove one of the rows in assets-timeframe-partitions.csv?

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 95.22%. Comparing base (8ee7150) to head (f7a024f).
Report is 3 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #1012   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   95.22%   95.22%           
=======================================
  Files          29       29           
  Lines        1151     1152    +1     
=======================================
+ Hits         1096     1097    +1     
  Misses         55       55           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[datejada]

Thanks, small simple change, pre-approved. It is a bit concerning that this doesn't break the tests at all. It's either not affecting anything, or affecting things that don't change anything. Either way, it's another thing we have to create tests for. Maybe we modify Norse to remove one of the rows in assets-timeframe-partitions.csv?

Thanks @abelsiqueira! I have updated the Storage case since it used the uniform partition = 1, so it does not change anything in the case study. In addition, I have updated the docs to mention the defaults and files that are allowed to be missing, and I have also updated the concepts section as a consequence.

Once the tests pass, I will merge them; thanks!