Fix Schedule Limits Error Message

[mitchute]

Pull request overview

• Fixes ScheduleTypeLimits Causing Fatal w/o Messages When Lower/Upper Values Reversed #9277

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

[mitchute]

The reason for the failure is due to a mismatch in the number of arguments ({}) in the format string. The format string expected 6 values, but 7 were passed, so format just failed and throws a fatal error which is caught here:

EnergyPlus/src/EnergyPlus/api/EnergyPlusPgm.cc

Line 402 in 923772d

} catch (const EnergyPlus::FatalError &e) {

This seems to bring up a larger issue - we have no way of catching when we have not correctly aligned the format arguments and the values passed. It seems that E+ will just catch the error as shown, but not fail as it should. We probably need a custom check script to expose these issues.

[mitchute]

Ready for review.

I've got a draft script for doing some validation on these format strings, and I've found a few other issues. The script isn't ready for prime time just yet but I'll have it polished up and the issues fixed before the release date.

[Myoldmopar]

Happy to take this. I know your script will be a big help with the robustness of the format strings, but it doesn't have to be attached to this PR.

[Myoldmopar]

Clearly the correct fix to get the right number of placeholders as arguments.

[Myoldmopar]

Thanks @mitchute , merging this one.