joesinger12 / TestTicketTransfer

0 stars 0 forks source link

CBECC-Com - Status Refresh Issue #42

Open joesinger12 opened 6 years ago

joesinger12 commented 6 years ago

8/22/17 NK - I just noticed that the status on the objects is not refreshing after I change the compliance type. I used our Standard Model for small office and changed to Existing Addition Alteration.

The space status says Altered even though everything says existing. This because the Window status has not refreshed to Existing – only after doing some changes or reopening the project.

Reported by: joesinger12

Original Ticket: cbecc-com/tickets/2469

joesinger12 commented 6 years ago

8/22/17 DR - I am going to commit a new rule file that has all of the TreeDescrip rules in it, and put it at the end of compilation so those get refreshed to the final result of a complete rule eval. That should address the discrepancy between object status and what is shown in the tree.

As for the issue of the Win:Status remaining 'New' after switching over to ExistingAddorAlt, I think it is because Win:DefaultStatus rule looks at Proj level inputs before looking at the status of the parent wall.

LH any issue with just always defaulting to the status of parent wall/roof for fenestration?
RH, are your wall/rook status rules reliable enough for the fenestration to always just inherit those values?

In any case, as best I can tell, it just takes 1 default rule eval for the statuses to fall inline with each other

Original comment by: joesinger12

joesinger12 commented 6 years ago

8/23/17 LH - I don't think defaulting window/skylight status based on the parent wall/roof status will fix this issue, because the in the current rule evaluation order window rules are evaluated before the opaque envelope rules. If anything, checking Project level inputs before opaque envelope inputs means that for compliance type where only one status is valid, the window status will change without a refresh (it wouldn't if we were depending only on wall status...)

For a future release, we may want to move all of the window rules to after the opaque wall rules.

Original comment by: joesinger12

joesinger12 commented 6 years ago

8/23/17 SC - Another solution would avoid all these rule order problems - revisions to the rule evaluation mechanism to track dependencies and evaluate rules in dependency order. This is not a small task and it has been on the list since our very first release - perhaps after this release would be a good time to pursue it. That would make the data model rule syntax approach MUCH more powerful (and readable) and easier to maintain.

Original comment by: joesinger12

joesinger12 commented 6 years ago

Original comment by: joesinger12

joesinger12 commented 6 years ago

Original comment by: joesinger12

joesinger12 commented 1 year ago

Original comment by: joesinger12