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

Coil speed ratio consolidation #10361

Closed

Conversation

tanaya-mankad
Copy link
Collaborator

Pull request overview

  • While adding ASHRAE205 Coil performance calculation to EnergyPlus, we discovered some duplication of input parameters in Coils that complicated the implementation. This PR is an attempt to homogenize the ideas of cycling-ratio and speed-ratio into a single speed-dependent parameter.
  • Incidental changes include updating the const-correctness of both declaration and implementation of simulate() and its dependencies, to prevent accidental changes to const values inside the function.

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

nealkruis and others added 30 commits April 6, 2023 12:54
@tanaya-mankad tanaya-mankad added the Defect Includes code to repair a defect in EnergyPlus label Jan 8, 2024
@tanaya-mankad tanaya-mankad reopened this Apr 23, 2024
@nrel-bot
Copy link

@tanaya-mankad @Myoldmopar it has been 29 days since this pull request was last updated.

@nrel-bot
Copy link

@tanaya-mankad @Myoldmopar it has been 28 days since this pull request was last updated.

4 similar comments
@nrel-bot-3
Copy link

@tanaya-mankad @Myoldmopar it has been 28 days since this pull request was last updated.

@nrel-bot
Copy link

@tanaya-mankad @Myoldmopar it has been 28 days since this pull request was last updated.

@nrel-bot-2
Copy link

@tanaya-mankad @Myoldmopar it has been 28 days since this pull request was last updated.

@nrel-bot
Copy link

@tanaya-mankad @Myoldmopar it has been 28 days since this pull request was last updated.

@tanaya-mankad
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Out of date; replaced by #10369.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Defect Includes code to repair a defect in EnergyPlus
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants