Enhanced Occupancy Model

[amcberkes]

Added enhanced occupancy model with minute-level control and different occupant types to model weekend behaviour, included daily parameter sampling for realistic behaviour that changes from day to day. Added test file for the new occupancy model. Fixed bug in randomized_arrival_departure_occupancy.py.

Summary

This PR introduces an enhanced occupancy model that provides more realistic building occupancy simulation with the following improvements:

New Features

• Enhanced occupancy model (smart_control/simulator/enhanced_occupancy.py):
• Minute-level temporal control
• Different occupant types to accurately model weekend behaviour patterns
• Daily parameter sampling for realistic day-to-day behavioural variation
• Tests (smart_control/simulator/enhanced_occupancy_test.py)

Bug Fixes

• Fixed bug in randomized_arrival_departure_occupancy.py: average_zone_occupancy() returned only an instantaneous count instead of computing the true time-averaged occupancy over the specified interval

Other Changes

• Updated GitHub issue and pull request templates

Testing

All pre-commit hooks pass, as well as the tests in enhanced_occupancy_test.py and randomized_arrival_departure_occupancy_test.py

[s2t2]

Hi @amcberkes thank you for this PR! 🙌 Looks like it will be a nice addition that will provide more complex and realistic occupancy modeling.

I left a lot of review comments.

The most important ones are:

• a suggestion to enforce / validate the presence of timezone for the EnhancedZoneOccupant class (comment), which may also allow us to simplify some of the method signatures accordingly to accept a single timestamp parameter instead of two
• replacing printing with logging (comment)
• changing assertions in non-test code to error raising instead (comment)
• fixing failing test(s) (comment)

Please feel free to reply to any of the comments if you would like to clarify or discuss further.

Otherwise let me know when you have finished implementing some updates and are ready for another review.

[amcberkes]

Hi @s2t2 , thanks for the detailed review! I have pushed an updated version with your suggestions. Lmk what you think!

[s2t2]

@amcberkes thank you for implementing the requested changes. This PR is looking good to me. And ready for merge.

FYI - there is a pipeline of incoming PRs (both internal and open source), and in hopes of minimizing merge conflicts for various contributors, I had been thinking of merging the PRs in the following order: #94 first, then #91, and then this one. However I am alternatively considering merging the PRs that are ready first. So stay tuned, but we will hope to get this merged as soon as possible.

[amcberkes]

@s2t2 thanks for the update! Sounds good.