PR #8997 breaks transitions for Wall:Detailed, etc for version < 9.6

[hongyuanjia]

Issue overview

PR #8997 introduced some changes in the VCompareGlobalRoutines.f90 for compatibility with the Space def introduced. However, those changes break transitions that involve detailed geometries, e.g. Wall:Detailed, Floor:Detailed, including transitions from v7.2 to v8.0, and v8.7 to v8.8.

I maintain an R package eplusr which implements pure R-based transition programs. Tests are run to make sure the results are the same between R and EnergyPlus Transition programs. The CI gives me errors after I try to use EnergyPlus v9.6.

══ Failed tests ════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
── Failure (test-transition.R:199:5): Transition v7.2 --> v8.0 ─────────────────
idfVU$"Wall:Detailed"$Wall$value() not equal to idfTR$"Wall:Detailed"$Wall$value().
Length mismatch: comparison on first 39 components
── Failure (test-transition.R:204:5): Transition v7.2 --> v8.0 ─────────────────
idfVU$"RoofCeiling:Detailed"$Roof$value() not equal to idfTR$"RoofCeiling:Detailed"$Roof$value().
Length mismatch: comparison on first 39 components
── Failure (test-transition.R:209:5): Transition v7.2 --> v8.0 ─────────────────
idfVU$"Floor:Detailed"$Floor$value() not equal to idfTR$"Floor:Detailed"$Floor$value().
Length mismatch: comparison on first 39 components
── Failure (test-transition.R:1252:5): Transition v8.7 --> v8.8 ────────────────
idfVU$"Floor:Detailed"$Surf2$value() not equal to idfTR$"Floor:Detailed"$Surf2$value(1:21).
Length mismatch: comparison on first 21 components
Component "Vertex 1 Y-coordinate": Mean relative difference: 0.3777778
Component "Vertex 1 Z-coordinate": Mean relative difference: 1
Component "Vertex 2 X-coordinate": Mean absolute difference: 45
Component "Vertex 2 Y-coordinate": Mean relative difference: 0.9111111
Component "Vertex 2 Z-coordinate": Mean relative difference: 1
Component "Vertex 3 X-coordinate": Mean absolute difference: 4
Component "Vertex 3 Z-coordinate": Mean relative difference: 1
Component "Vertex 4 X-coordinate": Mean absolute difference: 4
...

Take the floor Zn001:Flr001 as an example:

  Floor:Detailed,
    Zn001:Flr001,            !- Name
    FLOOR,                   !- Construction Name
    ZONE ONE,                !- Zone Name
    Adiabatic,               !- Outside Boundary Condition
    ,                        !- Outside Boundary Condition Object
    NoSun,                   !- Sun Exposure
    NoWind,                  !- Wind Exposure
    1.000000,                !- View Factor to Ground
    4,                       !- Number of Vertices
    15.24000,0.000000,0.0,  !- X,Y,Z ==> Vertex 1 {m}
    0.000000,0.000000,0.0,  !- X,Y,Z ==> Vertex 2 {m}
    0.000000,15.24000,0.0,  !- X,Y,Z ==> Vertex 3 {m}
    15.24000,15.24000,0.0;  !- X,Y,Z ==> Vertex 4 {m}

After transitioning from v8.7 to v8.8 using VersionUpdater from EnergyPlus v9.6, the results are below. Note that the value of Vertex 1 X-coordinate has been duplicated.

  Floor:Detailed,
    Zn001:Flr001,            !- Name
    FLOOR,                   !- Construction Name
    ZONE ONE,                !- Zone Name
    Adiabatic,               !- Outside Boundary Condition
    ,                        !- Outside Boundary Condition Object
    NoSun,                   !- Sun Exposure
    NoWind,                  !- Wind Exposure
    1.000000,                !- View Factor to Ground
    4,                       !- Number of Vertices
    15.24000,                !- Vertex 1 X-coordinate {m}
    15.24000,0.000000,0.0,  !- X,Y,Z ==> Vertex 1 {m}
    0.000000,0.000000,0.0,  !- X,Y,Z ==> Vertex 2 {m}
    0.000000,15.24000,0.0,  !- X,Y,Z ==> Vertex 3 {m}
    15.24000,15.24000,0.0;  !- X,Y,Z ==> Vertex 4 {m}

The error comes from the wrong number of fields given in WriteOutPartialIDFLines after parsing the field Number of Vertices.

EnergyPlus/src/Transition/VCompareGlobalRoutines.f90

Lines 947 to 972 in 00d968c

	CASE('WALL:DETAILED','ROOFCEILING:DETAILED','FLOOR:DETAILED')
	NVertFieldNum = 9 + SurfaceSpaceFieldShift
	IF (MakeUPPERCase(OutArgs(NVertFieldNum)) == 'AUTOCALCULATE') THEN
	NVert=(CurArgs-NVertFieldNum)/3
	ELSEIF (OutArgs(NVertFieldNum) == '') THEN
	NVert=(CurArgs-NVertFieldNum)/3
	ELSE
	! Try to read the number of vertices as an integer
	NVert = ProcessNumber(OutArgs(NVertFieldNum),ErrFlag)
	IF (ErrFlag) THEN
	! If failed, default to autocalculate instead
	NVert=(CurArgs-NVertFieldNum)/3
	! Replace in existing with Autocalculate
	OutArgs(NVertFieldNum) = 'Autocalculate'
	CALL ShowWarningError('For ' // TRIM(ObjectName) // ' named ''' // TRIM(OutArgs(1)) // &
	''', Number of vertices is not a number, defaulting to Autocalculate (N='// &
	TRIM(TrimSigDigits(NVert)) //')',Auditf)
	ELSE
	! Silently trim any float to an integer
	OutArgs(NVertFieldNum) = TrimSigDigits(NVert)
	ENDIF
	ENDIF
	! Now we write the first few fields
	CALL WriteOutPartialIDFLines(DifUnit,ObjectName,10,OutArgs,FieldNames,FieldUnits)

Instead of giving a fixed 10, the number of fields to be written should be based on NvertFiledNum. Just as what has been done to the case for BuildingSurface:Detailed. So L971 should be changed to below:

CALL WriteOutPartialIDFLines(DifUnit,ObjectName, **NVertFieldNum**,OutArgs,FieldNames,FieldUnits)

Details

Some additional details for this issue (if relevant):

• Platform (Operating system, version): All
• Version of EnergyPlus: Offical v9.6
• Unmethours link or helpdesk ticket number

Checklist

Add to this list or remove from it as applicable. This is a simple templated set of guidelines.

• Defect file added: 1ZoneUncontrolled_FoorDetailed.idf.txt
• Ticket added to Pivotal for defect (development team task)
• Pull request created (the pull request will have additional tasks related to reviewing changes that fix this defect)

[mjwitte]

@jcyuan2020 Please add this fix to #9139.

[jcyuan2020]

This one is added too. Thanks @hongyuanjia @mjwitte

[mjwitte]

Addressed in #9139