[FBumann]

Prompt: Lets check if lpspec needs to adjust anything after we merge the stack below energy-models/mathspec#421 — Do a Draft pr pinning the head of #421

Note

The following content was generated by AI.

The pin is now the release tag v0.0.0-alpha.82, which carries the whole five-PR stack for math-spec's issue #401 (#415, #416, #418, #420, #421 — the last squash commit, a2dcee7, is an ancestor of the tag). It replaces the commit 37f8b5136f8433a56653c1954d7ffe770902dd40, the head of energy-models/math-spec#421, that this PR pinned while no release contained the stack.

lpspec needs no code change. Nothing it imports from math-spec moved; the one consumer-visible change is that math-spec's Markdown typesetter now escapes a description: the way its LaTeX and Typst formats already did (_, [, ], * set as characters, a name in backticks as a code span). So this PR is:

• the pin, in pyproject.toml and the three math-spec lines of uv.lock
• the regenerated pages (tools.gallery_math, tools.ladder): every changed line is an escape such as 'bp\_x' or \[0, 1\]
• two descriptions written plain, in examples/ports/pypsa_cvar.yaml and examples/ports/pypsa_losses.yaml, because their *and* now sets as literal asterisks (and never set as emphasis in LaTeX or Typst); the same two lines inside the YAML block the gallery pages embed verbatim, which no tool writes

Against the commit pin the full suite on main at 2928e08 was 3754 passed, 251 skipped, 1 xfailed, 2 failed, the two failures being the stale generated pages this PR regenerates.

Verified at the tag

• uv lock resolves math-spec to v0.0.0a82 (commit 140ec94e); locked with uv 0.12.11 so the lock diff is the three math-spec lines only (older uv versions rewrite marker annotations across the file)
• uv sync --all-extras
• uv run python -m tools.gallery_math, uv run python -m tools.ladder, uv run python -m tools.constructs: no page changed against the commit pin, so the tag's tree is the pinned commit's tree for everything lpspec renders
• uv run pytest -q -n auto tests/test_models_gallery.py tests/test_pypsa_ladder_page.py tests/test_typeset_gallery.py tests/test_docs_site.py tests/test_ports.py: 612 passed, 14 skipped (the typst binary, and the MILP ports that record no duals)
• ruff check ., ruff format --check ., pyrefly check on both configs: clean
• Left alone on purpose: the *and* in the comment of examples/symbols/transport.yaml and the bold sentence in the hand-written prose of docs/examples/pypsa_losses.md, neither being a description
• Not run here: the full suite under pixi, and the typst-backed typeset tests

The next math-spec release needs a follow-up in lpspec

math-spec's main already carries #427 (refactor(program): a variable's domain is called domain in the program), which renames VariableDeclaration.variable_type to domain. It is not in alpha.82, so this pin is unaffected. lpspec reads variable_type in src/lpspec/linopy/builder.py at three sites (two in the variable attach, one in the discrete-variable listing before the solve), and the next math-spec release will need a follow-up in lpspec that renames those reads. Not done here.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

https://claude.ai/code/session_019d4fAY3RikKY317uerZ2Hc
https://claude.ai/code/session_017tCiQ1MTt4jG8X3qNEGNvZ

[read-the-docs-community]

Documentation build overview

📚 lpspec | 🛠️ Build #34485018 | 📁 Comparing 4253927 against latest (2928e08)

  🔍 Preview build  

10 files changed · ± 10 modified

± Modified

• examples/index.html
• about/architecture/index.html
• about/linopy/index.html
• about/roadmap/index.html
• examples/pypsa_cvar/index.html
• examples/pypsa_losses/index.html
• howto/debug/index.html
• reference/api/index.html
• reference/data/index.html
• reference/sweeps/index.html

[codspeed]

Merging this PR will not alter performance

✅ 16 untouched benchmarks
⏩ 42 skipped benchmarks¹

---

_{Comparing build/math-spec-at-421 (4253927) with main (7dc8553)²}

Footnotes

1. 42 benchmarks were skipped, so the baseline results were used instead. If they were deleted from the codebase, click here and archive them to remove them from the performance reports. ↩

2. No successful run was found on main (ec09ace) during the generation of this report, so 7dc8553 was used instead as the comparison base. There might be some changes unrelated to this pull request in this report. ↩