Skip to content
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

Signal overwrite/send block that does not require a socket connection #1059

Closed
dhblum opened this issue Dec 17, 2018 · 7 comments
Closed

Signal overwrite/send block that does not require a socket connection #1059

dhblum opened this issue Dec 17, 2018 · 7 comments

Comments

@dhblum
Copy link
Contributor

dhblum commented Dec 17, 2018

This issue is to add signal overwrite and send blocks that do not require a socket connection, as described in ibpsa/project1-boptest#15. This is an alternative solution implementation to #926.

@dhblum
Copy link
Contributor Author

dhblum commented Jan 29, 2019

The private parameter names should be changed to boptestOverwrite and boptestRead. See ibpsa/project1-boptest#20.

@mwetter
Copy link
Contributor

mwetter commented Mar 27, 2019

@dhblum Should the overwrite block be merged to the master or is it not yet stable?

@dhblum
Copy link
Contributor Author

dhblum commented Mar 29, 2019

@mwetter The block is not yet stable. To do:

  • Add enumeration parameter for KPI keywords (Javier helping to complete)
  • Add string parameter for variable description
  • Add documentation, which includes adding unit, min, max as attribute to read.y or overwrite.u.
  • Change color to white (extend continuous block instead of sample block)
  • Save as separate files

@javiarrobas
Copy link
Contributor

@dhblum and @mwetter,
The enumeration of the KPI signals has been merged in #1116. So far we are using entries for power and energy because we wanted the emulator developer to decide where to integrate: in the model or in the KPI calculator in python. However, I find that misleading and prone to errors in the tagging and the KPI calculation processes.
For instance the computation of cost and emissions requires power signals since prices and emission factors can vary over time whereas with an energy signal the information of when the energy was consumed is lost.
What do you think? should I leave the energy signals out and compute everything from powers?

@dhblum
Copy link
Contributor Author

dhblum commented Jul 5, 2019

@mwetter I've added documentation, reference results, and other needed changes for this branch, though the unittests still seem to be failing on travis and I can't figure out why. Can you please take a look at let me know what seems to be the issue?

See https://travis-ci.org/ibpsa/modelica-ibpsa/jobs/554825134

@mwetter
Copy link
Contributor

mwetter commented Jul 8, 2019

@dhblum
the problem is that package.order is incorrect:

# Check for package.order to be up to date
(cd  ../../../../IBPSA; \
	  python -c 'import buildingspy.development.refactor as r; \
	  r.write_package_order(".", recursive=True)'; \
	  git diff --exit-code . )
diff --git a/IBPSA/Utilities/IO/SignalExchange/Examples/BaseClasses/package.order b/IBPSA/Utilities/IO/SignalExchange/Examples/BaseClasses/package.order
index 380159e..48dc8ed 100644
--- a/IBPSA/Utilities/IO/SignalExchange/Examples/BaseClasses/package.order
+++ b/IBPSA/Utilities/IO/SignalExchange/Examples/BaseClasses/package.order
@@ -1,2 +1,2 @@
-OriginalModel
 ExportedModel
+OriginalModel
diff --git a/IBPSA/Utilities/IO/SignalExchange/package.order b/IBPSA/Utilities/IO/SignalExchange/package.order
index 46a2d61..8b93087 100644
--- a/IBPSA/Utilities/IO/SignalExchange/package.order
+++ b/IBPSA/Utilities/IO/SignalExchange/package.order
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
 Overwrite
 Read
-Examples
 SignalTypes
+Examples
make: *** [test-autogenerated-files] Error 1

You can fix it by running locally

cd  ../../../../IBPSA; \
	  python -c 'import buildingspy.development.refactor as r; \
	  r.write_package_order(".", recursive=True)'; 

and commit the updated files.

@dhblum
Copy link
Contributor Author

dhblum commented Jul 11, 2019

Thanks @mwetter this worked.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants