Alternative method to Utils optional options

[GeoDerp]

No description provided.

[GeoDerp]

@davidusb-geek
You can pick one or the other. (other being #167)
Personally I like this approach more as its easy to read. However mat be complex to understand.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: 3 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (6fe81cf) 88.54% compared to head (12f1be5) 89.96%.

Files	Patch %	Lines
src/emhass/forecast.py	33.33%	2 Missing ⚠️
src/emhass/utils.py	98.59%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #169      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   88.54%   89.96%   +1.41%     
==========================================
  Files           6        6              
  Lines        1668     1644      -24     
==========================================
+ Hits         1477     1479       +2     
+ Misses        191      165      -26     

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

[davidusb-geek]

This option seems much more elegant. Nice work.

[davidusb-geek]

Both solar.forcast and solcast should be broken. That was the main reason for both pull requests initially. Would have to check if that's related to that comment however.

The bugs from this comment are also solved on this PR.
In other words, if we use this PR instead of #167, the bugs on solar.forcast and solcast are solved?

[GeoDerp]

In testing it seemed to fix the issue also. Will do a double check now to be double sure.
(But yeah if you pull this one we will close the other)

[davidusb-geek]

I think that we will push up this method, if everything works correctly.

[GeoDerp]

Tested, looks like everything works. Actually found an bug when setting solar_forecast_kwp to 0 so added a patch fix (feel free to revert once pulled)

[GeoDerp]

hangon. may of found another bug. Looking at it now.
Having an issue with new_string = string.replace(var_load, var_load+'_positive') when I delete all parameters in options.json
Trying to work out why.

Edit: I think I know why

[GeoDerp]

@davidusb-geek Should be good to go now 👍
My most tested code yet (not saying its perfect)

[davidusb-geek]

Great! +1

[davidusb-geek]

So why save this association dict, it will be used elsewhere?

[GeoDerp]

We do. For testing. We check that options parameters are properly overriding the default config.
My method so far to make sure something didnt go crazy in the commit.