Specify domain of decommission variables

[gnawin]

Pull request details

Describe the changes made in this pull request

List of related issues or pull requests

Closes #828

Collaboration confirmation

As a contributor I confirm

• I read and followed the instructions in README.dev.md
• The documentation is up to date with the changes introduced in this Pull Request (or NA)
• Tests are passing
• Lint is passing

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 100.00%. Comparing base (1b88434) to head (f0e698c).
Report is 8 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##              main      #833   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage   100.00%   100.00%           
=========================================
  Files           19        19           
  Lines         1013      1008    -5     
=========================================
- Hits          1013      1008    -5     

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

[gnawin]

@abelsiqueira the goal of PR is to specify domains of decommissioning variables based on certain conditions, it is currently doing what I need it to do. But the structure of the code becomes kind of ugly, let's check out the first commit (b5952b2) together on Monday.

@datejada I'm not 100% sure if I did correctly for the storage part, would be best if you could double-check f0e698c.

However, as I mentioned above to Abel, the structure now looks not neat, so I'd propose we do this issue after the release (unless on Monday we figured out quickly a nice structure and you think the current commit does what it should do 😄 ). Also because this PR was meant to solve the infeasibility of multi-year, but that's now taken care of by #832.

[gnawin]

This is closed because this will be done in the refactor. Nevertheless, it can be a reference on what we would like to do.