Fix #4648 #4654 - SurfaceProperty:GroundSurfaces and SurfaceProperty:IncidentSolarMultiplier

[jmarrec]

Pull request overview

Companion PR:

• Fix #4648 #4654 - SurfaceProperty:GroundSurfaces and SurfaceProperty:IncidentSolarMultiplier OpenStudio#4676

Link to the Linux.deb installer to use for CI Testing. If not set, it will default to latest official release.
[OpenStudio Installer]: http://openstudio-ci-builds.s3-website-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/PR-4658/OpenStudio-3.5.0-alpha%2B38858ac1c8-Ubuntu-18.04.deb

This Pull Request is concerning:

• Case 1 - NewTest: a new test for a new model API class,

---

Case 1: New test for a new model API class

Test for SurfaceProperty:GroundSurfaces and SurfaceProperty:IncidentSolarMultiplier

Work Checklist

The following has been checked to ensure compliance with the guidelines:

• Tests pass either:

  • with official OpenStudio release (include version):

    • A matching OSM test has been added from the successful run of the Ruby one with the official OpenStudio release
    • The label AddedOSM has been added to this PR
    • All new out.osw have been committed

  • with current develop (incude SHA): Fix #4648 #4654 - SurfaceProperty:GroundSurfaces and SurfaceProperty:IncidentSolarMultiplier OpenStudio#4676

    • The label PendingOSM has been added to this PR
    • A matching OSM test has not yet been added because the official release is pending, but model_tests.rb has a TODO.
      • https://github.com/NREL/OpenStudio-resources/blob/79f6d9e9347e923d6e394346509914eb92a60ca2/model_tests.rb#L1093-L1100
    • No out.osw have been committed as they need to be run with an official OpenStudio version

• Ruby test is stable: when run multiple times on the same machine, it produces the same total site kBTU.
  Please paste the heatmap png generated after running the following commands:

  • I ensured that I assign systems/loads/etc in a repeatable manner (eg: if I assign stuff to thermalZones, I do model.getThermalZones.sort_by{|z| z.name.to_s}.each do ... so I am sure I put the same ZoneHVAC systems to the same zones regardless of their order)
  • I tested stability using process_results.py (see python process_results.py --help for usage).
    Please paste the text output or heatmap png generated after running the following commands:

    # Clean up all custom-tagged OSWs
    python process_results.py test-stability clean
    # Run your test 5 times in a row. Replace `testname_rb` (eg `airterminal_fourpipebeam_rb`)
    python process_results.py test-stability run -n test_surface_properties_ground_and_solarmult_rb --os_cli=/Users/julien/Software/Others/OS-build2/Products/openstudio
    # Check that they all passed
    python process_results.py test-status --tagged
    => OK: No Failing tests were found
    # Check site kBTU differences
    python process_results.py heatmap --tagged
    => Warning: There are no percentages differences that are above the threshold=1.0000% for any test/version,but there are some non-zero values, absolute max diff is 0.1269%

• Object has been added to autosize_hvac.rb to ensure the autosizedXXX values methods do work: N/A

---

Review Checklist

• Code style (indentation, variable names, strip trailing spaces)
• Functional code review (it has to work!)
• Matching OSM test has been added or # TODO added to model_tests.rb
• Appropriate out.osw have been committed
• Test is stable
• Object is tested in autosize_hvac as appropriate
• The appropriate labels have been added to this PR:
  • One of: NewTest, TestFix, NewTestForExisting, Other
  • If NewTest: add PendingOSM or AddedOSM

[jmarrec]

Stabilility issue?

=> Warning: There are no percentages differences that are above the threshold=1.0000% for any test/version,but there are some non-zero values, absolute max diff is 0.1269%

Rerunning with SAVE_IDF=True

SAVE_IDF=True python process_results.py test-stability run -n test_surface_properties_ground_and_solarmult_rb -N 10 --os_cli=/Users/julien/Software/Others/OS-build2/Products/openstudio

There are ZERO differences between the run 9 and the others, so I'm assuming this is an E+ problem... Here's a gist of the IDF file that is offending: https://gist.github.com/jmarrec/bd3b15c5b0272fd70e4f8d71303f5eab