Calculate UEF and related metrics

[spahrenk]

Description

• Determines the UEF and other metrics for HPWH models using DOE protocols.
• Determines usage rating corresponding to predetermined draw pattern, then runs 24-hr test to determine metrics.
• Usage determination can be performed on a selected model by calling testMeasureMetrics with arguments (preset) model_name. Calling with no arguments runs tests on preselected models. This test is included as an additional unit test.
• Model is determined to not be a consumer model if no heating occurs during the 24-hr test.
• Computations for AquaThermAire were verified with B. Larson.
• Passes all HPWHsim test. Should not affect cse.

Author Progress Checklist:

• Open draft pull request
  • Make title clearly understandable in a standalone change log context
  • Assign yourself the issue
  • Add at least one label (enhancement, bug, or maintenance)
  • Link the issue(s) addressed by this PR (under "Development" in the sidebar menu)
• Make code changes (if you haven't already)
• Self-review of code
  • My code follows the style guidelines of this project
  • I have added comments to my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
  • I have only committed the necessary changes for this fix or feature
  • I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
  • My changes generate no new warnings
  • I have ensured that my fix is effective or that my feature works as intended by:
    • exercising the code changes in the test framework, and/or
    • manually verifying the changes (as explained in the the pull request description above)
  • My changes pass all local tests
  • My changes successfully passes CI checks
  • Add any unit test for proof and documentation.
  • Merge in main branch and address resulting conflicts and/or test failures.
• Move pull request out of draft mode and assign reviewers
• [] Iterate with reviewers until all changes are approved
  • Make changes in response to reviewer comments
  • Merge in main branch and address resulting conflicts and/or test failures.
  • Re-request review in GitHub

Reviewer Checklist:

• Read the pull request description
• Perform a code review on GitHub
• Confirm all CI checks pass and there are no build warnings
• Pull, build, and run automated tests locally
• Perform manual tests of the fix or feature locally
• Add any review comments, if applicable
• Submit review in GitHub as either
  • Request changes, or
  • Approve
• Iterate with author until all changes are approved

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 84.09506% with 87 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 68.59%. Comparing base (f90302f) to head (e2418c8).

Files	Patch %	Lines
src/HPWH.cc	84.13%	86 Missing ⚠️
src/HPWHHeatSources.cc	66.67%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #197      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   66.78%   68.59%   +1.81%     
==========================================
  Files           6        6              
  Lines        5157     5588     +431     
==========================================
+ Hits         3444     3833     +389     
- Misses       1713     1755      +42     

Flag	Coverage Δ
integration	68.59% <84.10%> (+1.81%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[nealkruis]

Looking good! Just a few thoughts and suggestions to consider.

[nealkruis]

@spahrenk do we have a corresponding CSE branch yet? I want to make sure we aren't breaking the API.

[spahrenk]

Added standby test following first draw cluster.