@kaskranenburgQ will this change model results? If so, we cannot merge it without discussing it with our clients.

Just did a quick scan of the changes. In addition to Mathijs' question and remark, I think we also need to write a migration, since the inputs that will be deleted with this PR can be set in scenarios... Let's discuss in the sprint.

In the modeler sprint we discussed whether a scenario migration was necessary for the changes that were made in these inputs. We concluded that an investigation about the current working of the input statements was necessary: Do these inputs work when you set them in the backend? And do they work when we upload a curve?

I found that the input statement does work. If set:
flh_of_geothermal_heat: 1000 in a blank nl2019 scenario on master, I see that the full load hours of the node agriculture_geothermal will be changed to 1000.0:

However, when I then upload a capacity profile via the front-end:

The flh setting is removed from the inputs:

And the full load hours of agriculture_geothermal is reverted back to it's orginal value:

To conclude:

• The flh inputs work as a back-end input
• Uploading a curve is not functional and resets the input when it is set.
• Therefore there is a great chance that users who 'accidentally' have set the input have overwritten the input with a curve.
• We should check if this is the case.

I had a look at the scenarios through the server. I couldn't always parse the user_inputs for older scenarios for this hash serialisation issue for some of the values, especially in older scenarios:
Tried to load unspecified class: Rational (Psych::DisallowedClass)

But from the scenarios which I could check, and definitely for all the scenarios in the etengine pro backup, none of these inputs are set:

• flh_of_solar_thermal
• flh_of_geothermal_heat
• flh_of_hydro_river