Correct cost calculations and storage operation

[adamsjohanna]

This commit adapts the use of the right price forecast for storages, the cost calculations in flexable.py according to flexABLE (minor correction and inclusion of avg_operation_times) and the calculation of total_costs as reward_function

[maurerle]

This looks good! Is the storage now operating as expected?
Hopefully, we are not breaking any other time assumptions through this :)
Maybe you can run some other examples just to be sure..?

this fixes #197 right?

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: 72 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (ac75b59) 80.89% compared to head (5ef1b48) 81.94%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #206      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   80.89%   81.94%   +1.05%     
==========================================
  Files          40       39       -1     
  Lines        4057     4044      -13     
==========================================
+ Hits         3282     3314      +32     
+ Misses        775      730      -45     

Flag	Coverage Δ
pytest	81.94% <55.55%> (+1.05%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files	Coverage Δ
assume/common/forecasts.py	85.36% <100.00%> (-1.63%)	⬇️
assume/common/units_operator.py	90.90% <100.00%> (-0.45%)	⬇️
...me/markets/clearing_algorithms/complex_clearing.py	90.78% <ø> (ø)
assume/strategies/dmas_powerplant.py	69.94% <100.00%> (ø)
assume/strategies/dmas_storage.py	82.03% <100.00%> (ø)
assume/strategies/learning_strategies.py	95.04% <100.00%> (ø)
assume/units/demand.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
assume/units/powerplant.py	91.86% <92.30%> (+4.95%)	⬆️
assume/units/storage.py	88.80% <81.25%> (+2.99%)	⬆️
assume/strategies/flexable_storage.py	86.98% <65.85%> (-8.89%)	⬇️
... and 2 more

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

[maurerle]

looks good!