Rename ComponentGraph to CompenentTree

[matthias-wende-frequenz]

ComponentTree is a better name, because this graph is essentially a tree.

[leandro-lucarella-frequenz]

Are we 100% that it could never become a graph? If so, it sounds good to me!

[leandro-lucarella-frequenz]

@ela-kotulska-frequenz @sahas-subramanian-frequenz @tiyash-basu-frequenz FYI

[tiyash-basu-frequenz]

Are we 100% that it could never become a graph? If so, it sounds good to me!

Well, it will always remain a graph, but it will never have cycles in it.

[shsms]

An upside-down tree, what an interesting idea :D.

I think out model always has a single root node = the grid component, at the top, and it will be directed towards the leaf nodes, so it will still be a tree.

[tiyash-basu-frequenz]

Could any component have more than one parent? If so, then I guess it is a DAG, if not, then it is a tree.

True, it could have multiple parents. E.g., one BMS having multiple inverters as parents.
In this context, DAG would indeed be more accurate than tree.

[tiyash-basu-frequenz]

Also, in general, if we model loads in series (hypothetically), we'd have to use DAGs.
So even in general electrical contexts, DAGs make more terminological sense IMO.

[leandro-lucarella-frequenz]

@matthias-wende-frequenz so it seems it should be ComponentDag, which is definitely less catchy than ComponentGraph or ComponentTree.

ComponentTree would be wrong, as it doesn't fulfill the requirements of a tree.

ComponentGraph is still correct, although more general, but IMHO is much easier to understand than ComponentDag, as I think a graph is a much more popular concept than a DAG. Because of this I would be OK to rename it to DAG but I lean slightly towards keeping it as it is.

[matthias-wende-frequenz]

Sorry I can't remember the context of that issue 😕. Let's keep graph.

[leandro-lucarella-frequenz]

As Matthias said:

Let's keep graph.

Because it's not really a tree either, it is technically a DAG.