-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 192
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Wrap Coil:Cooling:DX:SingleSpeed:ThermalStorage #5059
Conversation
@shorowit pointed out that it's not always appropriate to use idf testfile values. |
I'm kinda torn on this one. There are three options:
Worth noting that I doubt this object will be commonly used by people, so factor that in. @kbenne Can you please advise here? |
My vote is leave the curves as optionals (so either bullet 2 or 3); it doesn't look the one testfile on the E+ repo with Coil:Cooling:DX:SingleSpeed:ThermalStorage has all the curve fields populated, so what would we set them to? |
I don't see where ElectricLoadCenterDistribution's |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for the changes @joseph-robertson
I think there are a couple of loose ens to tie up still, but it's almost there!
ok = setAncillaryElectricPower(0.0); | ||
OS_ASSERT(ok); | ||
ok = setColdWeatherOperationAncillaryPower(0.0); | ||
OS_ASSERT(ok); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
(now that I've requested it, I hope we don't find out later that E+ treats blank and zero differently... sometimes that happens)
EXPECT_EQ(0u, rmed.size()); | ||
ASSERT_TRUE(unitary.coolingCoil()); | ||
EXPECT_EQ(dx, unitary.coolingCoil().get()); | ||
} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
maybe test you can setCoolingCoil with another type of Unitary sys then?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Same: test with the ZoneHVACComponents.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
setCoolingCoil for these system types should throw? Do we have examples/precedents for doing this?
EXPECT_EQ(2u, model.getConcreteModelObjects<AirLoopHVACUnitarySystem>().size()); | ||
EXPECT_EQ(2u, model.getConcreteModelObjects<CoilCoolingDXSingleSpeedThermalStorage>().size()); | ||
EXPECT_EQ(dx, unitary.coolingCoil().get()); | ||
EXPECT_NE(dx, unitaryClone.coolingCoil().get()); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Need test to check what happens when you clone to another model. And when removing (are curves dragged / removed?)
src/energyplus/ForwardTranslator/ForwardTranslateAirLoopHVACUnitaryHeatPumpAirToAir.cpp
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
} else if (_coolingCoil->iddObject().type() == IddObjectType::Coil_Cooling_DX_SingleSpeed_ThermalStorage) { | ||
_coolingCoil->setString(Coil_Cooling_DX_SingleSpeed_ThermalStorageFields::EvaporatorAirInletNodeName, coolingCoilInletNodeName); | ||
_coolingCoil->setString(Coil_Cooling_DX_SingleSpeed_ThermalStorageFields::EvaporatorAirOutletNodeName, coolingCoilOutletNodeName); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Either we can assign it to a PTAC, PTHP, then we should have a containingZoneHVACComponent implemented in model, or this should be removed.
Either way, looks like we need model tests indeed to check what this can or cannot be assigned to.
@joseph-robertson One failing test
|
CI Results for faffcfd:
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for the work @joseph-robertson ! Tests are passing now, this looks good to go
Found while writing NREL/OpenStudio-resources#206
Pull request overview
RetailPackagedTESCoil.idf
? Or a mix of the idf values and idd defaults?RetailPackagedTESCoil.idf
.Pull Request Author
src/model/test
)src/energyplus/Test
)src/osversion/VersionTranslator.cpp
)Labels:
IDDChange
APIChange
Pull Request - Ready for CI
so that CI builds your PRReview Checklist
This will not be exhaustively relevant to every PR.