RS/JX/Rule11-15 #1541
RS/JX/Rule11-15 #1541
Conversation
| ) | ||
| return len(swh_use_ids) > 0 | ||
|
|
||
| def get_calc_vals(self, context, data=None): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I believe this rule should be based at SWH level evaluation as the RDS indicated Evaluation Context is Each SWH use.
In this class, you should get swh_dist_sys_p and swh_dist_sys_b from the RMD.
Then you can start pointing the list_path="$.buildings[*]" to $building[*].building_segments[*].service_water_heating_uses[*]
The nested class will be SWHUse class which does the compare.
Note - the engine takes care of the id matching - so if there is swh_use_b exist but no swh_use_p, the context.BASELINE_0 is an object but context.PROPOSED = None.
|
@weilixu Thank you for the review. I have updated the implementation based on your feedback. This PR is ready for another round of review. |
| ) | ||
| else: | ||
| if swh_use_b.get("use_units") != swh_use_p.get("use_units"): | ||
| rule_status = "fail" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There are two more fields in the latest schema is_heat_recovered_by_drain and is_recovered_heat_used_by_cold_side_feed. Do we need to validate the equality of these two fields? @weilixu
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If these two values are not in the schema in RCT, then manually adding them.
From the name, it seems the two fields are boolean - I am not sure why asking about validation of the equality?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, they are boolean. My understanding is that their equality determines if the swh uses in the baseline and proposed are modeled the same. For example, if is_heat_recovered_by_drain is true in the baseline and false in the proposed, the energy required by this swh use will be different in the two models.
| ), | ||
| each_rule=Section11Rule15.RMDRule.SWHUseRule(), | ||
| index_rmd=BASELINE_0, | ||
| list_path="$.buildings[*].building_segments[*].zones[*].spaces[*].service_water_heating_uses[*]", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Add a comment
# TODO, change the path if the service_water_heating_uses moved to building_segment level| rmd_b, building_segment["id"] | ||
| ) | ||
| ) | ||
| swh_use_ids.extend(service_water_heating_use_ids_b) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Need to update this piece of code since the get_swh_uses_associated_with_each_building_segment in Yun Joon's #1543 is returning a dictionary of building_segment_id to a list of swh_uses.
With this new implementation, you can simply get the value of the dictionary and append those values to the swh_use_ids.
| ) | ||
| else: | ||
| if swh_use_b.get("use_units") != swh_use_p.get("use_units"): | ||
| rule_status = "fail" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If these two values are not in the schema in RCT, then manually adding them.
From the name, it seems the two fields are boolean - I am not sure why asking about validation of the equality?
| + swh_use_b["id"] | ||
| + " Proposed Service Water Heating Use is greater than the baseline. " | ||
| ) | ||
| return { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am not in favor of strictly following the RDS implementation. - calc_val function suppose to do calculations and return values for reporting and rule_check/manual_check functions. In here, the rule definition calculation, these are all blended into calc_val function.
I suggest focusing on return a few parameters:
return {
is_swh_use_none_b: swh_use_b is None,
is_swh_use_none_p: swh_use_p is None,
swh_use_use_units_b: swh_use_b.get("use_units"),
swh_use_use_units_p: swh_use_b.get("use_units"),
swh_use_multiplier_schedule_b: swh_use_b.get("use_multiplier_schedule"),
swh_use_multiplier_schedule_p: swh_use_p.get("use_multiplier_schedule"),
swh_use_temperature_at_fixture_b: swh_use_b.get("temperature_at_fixture"),
swh_use_temperature_at_fixture_p: swh_use_p.get("temperature_at_fixture"),
swh_use_water_mains_temperature_schedule_b: swh_use_b.get("entering_water_mains_temperature_schedule"),
swh_use_water_mains_temperature_schedule_p: swh_use_p.get("entering_water_mains_temperature_schedule"),
swh_use_served_by_distribution_system_b: swh_dist_sys_id_b = swh_use_b.get("served_by_distribution_system"),
swh_use_served_by_distribution_system_p: swh_dist_sys_id_p = swh_use_b.get("served_by_distribution_system"),
swh_use_design_supply_water_temperature_b: design_supply_water_temperature_b, # you will need to calculate this value
swh_use_design_supply_water_temperature_p: design_supply_water_temperature_p, # you will need to calculate this value
swh_use_use_b: swh_use_b.get("use", 0),
swh_use_use_p: swh_use_p.get("use", 0)
}Move all the logics including rule_note draft to the rule_check function.
Rule_check function, you can simply return not rule_note - if no error, the rule_note would be an empty string and it is falsy in python.
Pay extra attention to the manual return function. You will need to make sure the other parameters are all identical (pass the test) before running the manual return. This means you need to compare all the other parameters before checking the equality of the uses.
This rule has been tested (Nov 11).