pnnl / ruleset-checking-tool

Geek Repo:Geek Repo

Github PK Tool:Github PK Tool

get_fan_system_object_supply_return_exhaust_relief_total_kW_CFM function issue

yunjoonjung-PNNL opened this issue · comments

The ruleset team discussed two points for the get_fan_system_object_supply_return_exhaust_relief_total_kW_CFM function (Please also refer to #1028).

  1. function name: We suggest not including explicit units in the function name. The recommended new function name is get_fan_system_object_supply_return_exhaust_relief_total_power_flow or get_fan_system_object_info (We prefer the second name). The current name doesn't help the caller understand what is being retrieved.

  2. returned dict: Returning [supply fan power kW, return fan power kW, exhaust fan power kW, relief fan power kW] as a list is going to lead to all sorts of confusion and bugs going forward. We suggest each piece of information returned should be named so we don't get confused. The currently proposed implementation is shown HERE.

Could you check the two points make sense? If so, could you also reflect the updates to all the related RDS?

For #1, I will defer to the rest of the team as to what name makes sense.

For #2, I think the proposal sounds good and achieves the same thing as the previous logic. Can you tell me which RDSs need to be updated to accommodate this new logic? If not, I can go through each and see - wasn't sure if you had a list.

  1. Thank you. I'd appreciate it if you could let us know too.
  2. This function is used in Rules 19-13, 14, 17, 20, and 23.

My vote is for the first name get_fan_system_object_supply_return_exhaust_relief_total_power_flow. I also don't mind the existing name. The "get_fan_system_object_info" option seems too generic - it's unclear what exactly is being returned as fan system object have many elements and attributes.

Good point! After @claperle and other team members confirm, I'll update the name.

@yunjoonjung-PNNL I agree with Maria's comment.

Also, I updated 19-13 and created a pull request. Can you please confirm my update is correct. If so, I will update the others.

It looks great to me. I appreciate this update!

@yunjoonjung-PNNL I updated 19-13, 19-14, 19-17, 19-20, and 19-23 and created pull requests for each.