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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Fix opaque cloud cover #8762

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
May 21, 2021
Merged

Fix opaque cloud cover #8762

merged 5 commits into from
May 21, 2021

Conversation

jcyuan2020
Copy link
Contributor

@jcyuan2020 jcyuan2020 commented May 8, 2021 •
edited
Loading

Pull request overview

Pull Request Author

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

  • Title of PR should be user-synopsis style (clearly understandable in a standalone changelog context)
  • Label the PR with at least one of: Defect, Refactoring, NewFeature, Performance, and/or DoNoPublish
  • Pull requests that impact EnergyPlus code must also include unit tests to cover enhancement or defect repair
  • Author should provide a "walkthrough" of relevant code changes using a GitHub code review comment process
  • If any diffs are expected, author must demonstrate they are justified using plots and descriptions
  • If changes fix a defect, the fix should be demonstrated in plots and descriptions
  • If any defect files are updated to a more recent version, upload new versions here or on DevSupport
  • If IDD requires transition, transition source, rules, ExpandObjects, and IDFs must be updated, and add IDDChange label
  • If structural output changes, add to output rules file and add OutputChange label
  • If adding/removing any LaTeX docs or figures, update that document's CMakeLists file dependencies

Reviewer

This will not be exhaustively relevant to every PR.

  • Perform a Code Review on GitHub
  • If branch is behind develop, merge develop and build locally to check for side effects of the merge
  • If defect, verify by running develop branch and reproducing defect, then running PR and reproducing fix
  • If feature, test running new feature, try creative ways to break it
  • CI status: all green or justified
  • Check that performance is not impacted (CI Linux results include performance check)
  • Run Unit Test(s) locally
  • Check any new function arguments for performance impacts
  • Verify IDF naming conventions and styles, memos and notes and defaults
  • If new idf included, locally check the err file and other outputs

@mjwitte mjwitte added the Defect Includes code to repair a defect in EnergyPlus label May 11, 2021
@mjwitte mjwitte mentioned this pull request May 11, 2021
Closed
3 tasks
Myoldmopar
Myoldmopar approved these changes May 20, 2021
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@Myoldmopar Myoldmopar left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

These changes look good to me. I will pull develop in locally, run regressions and the unit test suite. I will also try to run the defect file (I haven't verified there is one...)

src/EnergyPlus/WeatherManager.cc
@@ -2035,7 +2035,7 @@ namespace WeatherManager {
state.dataWeatherManager->TodayDifSolarRad = state.dataWeatherManager->TomorrowDifSolarRad;
state.dataWeatherManager->TodayLiquidPrecip = state.dataWeatherManager->TomorrowLiquidPrecip;
state.dataWeatherManager->TodayTotalSkyCover = state.dataWeatherManager->TomorrowTotalSkyCover;
state.dataWeatherManager->TodayOpaqueSkyCover = state.dataWeatherManager->TomorrowTotalSkyCover;
state.dataWeatherManager->TodayOpaqueSkyCover = state.dataWeatherManager->TomorrowOpaqueSkyCover;
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah great fix!

testfiles/1ZoneUncontrolled.idf
Output:Variable,*,Site Total Sky Cover,hourly;

Output:Variable,*,Site Opaque Sky Cover,hourly;

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ideally these would be added to the develop branch in a separate PR so you could see the diffs. But that's a lot of extra work, and the fix here is pretty obvious. Either way it's good to add them here at least.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks! @Myoldmopar Since the testfiles' changes are in the last two commits, I can easily revert to the commit before the one before that (actually already did it locally and ready to push if needed). Then after merging of this one I can add back the two last ones in a new PR.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't think it's necessary. This is an obvious fix, and adding the output variables to the IDFs is a nice bonus over the unit test. I think this is already ready to go. CI looks good too, with just the new output variables causing "diffs". I still need to run it locally but I think it's good.

tst/EnergyPlus/unit/WeatherManager.unit.cc
EXPECT_NEAR(state->dataWeatherManager->TomorrowOpaqueSkyCover(2, 4), 8.00, 1e-6);
EXPECT_NEAR(state->dataWeatherManager->TomorrowTotalSkyCover(1, 4), 8.75, 1e-6);
EXPECT_NEAR(state->dataWeatherManager->TomorrowOpaqueSkyCover(1, 4), 8.00, 1e-6);
}
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Nice. 👍

@Myoldmopar
Copy link
Member

Thanks for this fix @jcyuan2020, merging.

@Myoldmopar Myoldmopar merged commit afa7c87 into NREL:develop May 21, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@Myoldmopar Myoldmopar Myoldmopar approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
Defect Includes code to repair a defect in EnergyPlus
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Opaque Cloud Cover output problem in v9.5
8 participants
@jcyuan2020 @Myoldmopar @nrel-bot @nrel-bot-2 @nrel-bot-3 @nrel-bot-2b @nrel-bot-2c @mjwitte