EDD timestamps off by 1 timestep

[shorowit]

Issue overview

If you run the attached IDF file and look at the EMS debug output file (EDD), you'll find that the last timestep in the warmup period is 01/01 24:00 - 24:10 and the first timestep after the warmup period is 01/01 00:10 - 00:20. I would have expected the last timestep in the warmup period to be 01/01 23:50 - 24:00 and the first timestep after the warmup period is 01/01 00:00 - 00:10. The off by 1 timestep makes it confusing to debug our EMS programs.

Details

Some additional details for this issue (if relevant):

• EnergyPlus 24.2

Checklist

Add to this list or remove from it as applicable. This is a simple templated set of guidelines.

• Defect file added: in.idf (run with USA_CO_Denver.Intl.AP.725650_TMY3.epw)
• Ticket added to EnergyPlus Defect Complexity (Github Project)
• Pull request created (the pull request will have additional tasks related to reviewing changes that fix this defect)

[RKStrand]

@shorowit I have confirmed that this is an issue, and I have a potential solution that I think will fix the problem. I need to do a bit more checking that what I am doing is correct. Most of the places where the time stamp is being used are in error messages. I want to do a bit more digging to see if there is anything else that uses the time stamp in other stream of consciousness reports to make sure this is working for those as well.

[RKStrand]

Everything else is part of an error message stream. I speculate that this means that no one has noticed because frankly when you see one of these error messages you are looking at the problem and not double checking that the time period is reporting correctly. From a logical standpoint, the time stamp creation logic seems wrong. It looks at the "current time step" which is actually the end of the time step and calls that the start. This is backed-up by the evidence that the time stamp range is wrong in the RDD (day starts from 00:10 - 00:20 and ends on 24:00 - 24:10). That is clearly wrong and I believe my fix will address this issue correctly.

[shorowit]

Thanks @RKStrand!