Assign HPWH air inlet/outlet node names#5549
Conversation
| auto inletNode = modelObject.inletNode(); | ||
| OS_ASSERT(inletNode); | ||
| airInletNodeName = inletNode->name().get(); | ||
| airInletNodeName = modelObject.airInletNodeName().value_or(inletNode->name().get()); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should the optional air node names only be translated when inletAirConfiguration is "Schedule"? Or should we have rules for when air node names can be set based on current choice of inletAirConfiguration?
🧪 Test Results DashboardSummary
|
| Run | XML File | Status |
|---|---|---|
| run1 | results.xml |
✅ Found |
| run3 | results.xml |
✅ Found |
| run2 | results.xml |
✅ Found |
| A6 , \field Air Inlet Node Name | ||
| \type object-list | ||
| \object-list ConnectionNames | ||
| \type alpha |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is it possible for these Node Name fields to support either a connection or string? Is that even what we'd want? Or can we get away with just string, along with updates to the forward translator (e.g., modelObject.inletNode() no longer exists).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Or maybe we want to be able to set a Node (i.e., use \object-list Node)?
|
CI Results for 18b9044:
|
|
I'm not clear what the path forward should be. Should we:
I feel like maybe (D) is what we want? Or some combination of these? |
I felt like it was easier to show than trying to explain. Please see #5551 for a prototype. I didn't even try to build it, but it should serve as a nice starter. If you and @shorowit can agree on the idea, then you can wrap up the PR by porting some of the tests you added in this PR. And Yes, that would be (D) in your list |
|
Superseded by #5551 |
Pull request overview
WaterHeaterHeatPumpWrappedCondenser_GTest.cppPull Request Author
src/model/test)src/energyplus/Test)src/osversion/VersionTranslator.cpp)Labels:
IDDChangeAPIChangePull Request - Ready for CIso that CI builds your PRReview Checklist
This will not be exhaustively relevant to every PR.