Fix #11267 - Ensure consistency of IDF file formats for easier diffing#11268
Fix #11267 - Ensure consistency of IDF file formats for easier diffing#11268
Conversation
…gured from an in.f90 file
``` git diff -U0 | grepdiff 'Watts per Zone' --output-matching=hunk | git apply --cached --unidiff-zero git diff -U0 | grepdiff 'Rate per Exterior' --output-matching=hunk | git apply --cached --unidiff-zero ``` more ``` git diff -U0 | grepdiff 'Zone Load Sizing Method' --output-matching=hunk | git apply --cached --unidiff-zero git diff -U0 | grepdiff 'Coefficient1 Constant' --output-matching=hunk | git apply --cached --unidiff-zero [etc] ``` Then I manually added the rest of the formatting changes
…ableSpeed and WaterToAir[chore] HeatPump and AirToWaterHeatPump and PCM coils
```
{'Coil:Cooling:DX:VariableSpeed',
'Coil:Cooling:WaterToAirHeatPump:EquationFit',
'Coil:Cooling:WaterToAirHeatPump:ParameterEstimation',
'Coil:Cooling:WaterToAirHeatPump:VariableSpeedEquationFit',
'Coil:Heating:DX:VariableSpeed',
'Coil:Heating:WaterToAirHeatPump:EquationFit',
'Coil:Heating:WaterToAirHeatPump:ParameterEstimation',
'Coil:Heating:WaterToAirHeatPump:VariableSpeedEquationFit',
'Coil:WaterHeating:AirToWaterHeatPump:Pumped',
'Coil:WaterHeating:AirToWaterHeatPump:VariableSpeed',
'Coil:WaterHeating:AirToWaterHeatPump:Wrapped',
'ThermalStorage:HotWater:Stratified'}
```
…lExecutor (this is too slow for pratical use: takes 1 to 2 hr to reformat testfiles/)
d5d328c to
21cb6d3
Compare
|
|
mitchute
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I like adding some consistency to these.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I guess we would just run this on our own occasionally, or it is going to be part of a more formal check? Would it be fast enough to run as part of our ./scripts/dev/apply_formatting.sh cleanup?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No. It takes way too long. Like 1.5 hours. And that's why 16 processes running in parallel in a temp folder. It's horrendous. The Transition utilities are really really bad in terms of performance.
Eventually we'll write up a python script to do at least the formatting part.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Now that I've already pushed, I'm realizing that I didn't actually run this script. I just ran the new transition exe directly.
| ! Version, | ||
| ! 9.0; !- Version Identifier | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm debating whether it would be useful to keep the version identifiers here and in other files that are just IDF object holders, and not really simulation input files.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If the version object and number was in those files, wouldn't the transition program work on them?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If the version objects are not in there, the transition still happens. It'll just add the Transition's version as a comment.
So you'd end up with
! Version,
! 9.0; !- Version Identifier
! Version,
! 25.2; !- Version Identifier
|
Now the next can of 🪱 🪱 🪱 ... what about the IDF objects in the unit tests and docs?? |
Yeah that's a much harder problem to solve. |
mitchute
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I ran the new transition exe locally, and it all looks OK. Unless I hear otherwise, I think we can merge this if CI passes.
| @@ -301,8 +298,8 @@ | |||
| 0.03, !- Sandia Database Parameter c5 {dimensionless} | |||
| 33.8, !- Sandia Database Parameter Ix0 | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
These should probably be tagged with \unit A at some point.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Now that I've already pushed, I'm realizing that I didn't actually run this script. I just ran the new transition exe directly.
|
|
Pull request overview
Description of the purpose of this PR
In particular I had about 50 files failures, and after a lot of effort I isolated the issue: the tool removed some coils
Pull Request Author
Reviewer