Question-and-Answer Resource for the Building Energy Modeling Community
Get started with the Help page
Ask Your Question

Error with no Error file after edits to source code

asked 2019-12-09 18:32:36 -0600

bbrannon4 gravatar image

updated 2019-12-10 11:01:55 -0600

I'm doing some minor tweaks to the source code of energyplus for a project (for the first time), and I've made the edits and compiled it successfully, but when I test it out on a project I get a **FATAL:Errors occurred on processing input file. Preceding condition(s) cause termination. The problem is, no error file seems to have been created so I can't track down if it's an issue with my source code edits (probably), or potentially something to do with the fact that I tested the model in 9.1 but now I've used the code from 9.2 as a starting point. Is there some other place than my local project directory that an error file might be stored, or some other way to get more details from the command line?

Full error:

EnergyPlus Starting
EnergyPlus, Version 9.2.0-44e30c353a, YMD=2019.12.10 10:01
**FATAL:Errors occurred on processing input file. Preceding condition(s) cause termination.
EnergyPlus Run Time=00hr 00min  0.28sec
Program terminated: EnergyPlus Terminated--Error(s) Detected.
edit retag flag offensive close merge delete


It would help if you specified what you modified and how you executed EnergyPlus. Otherwise it's hard to give answers that aren't fairly speculative.

Jason DeGraw gravatar image Jason DeGraw  ( 2019-12-10 08:00:02 -0600 )edit

I'm adding a few output variables for the refrigeration systems, in particular psuction for the compressors as a test. I've pulled that variable out of the loop it was calculated in and added it to an output. However I'm not asking what my specific problem is, I'm just asking why there is no error file being produced in the usual location.

bbrannon4 gravatar image bbrannon4  ( 2019-12-10 10:12:07 -0600 )edit

Well, it's best not to assume a file was written. Depending upon what has been changed, it's possible that something went wrong early enough that no file was written. It isn't clear from your question whether E+ finished successfully or not. So there's that. Assuming it did write a file, then how it was run should determine where the file is.

Jason DeGraw gravatar image Jason DeGraw  ( 2019-12-10 10:39:09 -0600 )edit

No it didn't even start, based on the fatal error on processing the input file. What other information would be helpful, other than posting the entire code I've changed? I'm just confused because the error seems to indicate that E+ thinks something is wrong with the input file, but that's all the information I was given.

bbrannon4 gravatar image bbrannon4  ( 2019-12-10 10:46:17 -0600 )edit

1 Answer

Sort by ยป oldest newest most voted

answered 2019-12-10 11:34:49 -0600

bbrannon4 gravatar image

I figured it out - kind of silly on my part. First, my model was made in 9.1, and I was using 9.2 (intentionally) for my work. If I ran that file through the 9.2 release version, it gave me a very useful error and said the file was the wrong version. However in the test build I'm working on, that didn't show anywhere. So I just updated the file and now all is good and running.

In addition to that, when I ran the model (through the command line interface) I specified where the input file was, expecting the resulting simulation files to also be saved there, but then noticed that they are actually being saved to the release/Products folder (current directory) because I didn't specify an outputs folder.

edit flag offensive delete link more


Regarding your second point, that's always the case, local build or official release alike. So instead of going to <build>/Products and running energyplus <path/to/my.idf>, perhaps consider doing the opposite (cd next to your idf file, and do <build>/Products/energyplus my.idf). You could use an alias / env variable to shorten your path to your locally built energyplus (or add it to PATH) if that gets annoying to type)

Julien Marrec gravatar image Julien Marrec  ( 2019-12-10 14:06:19 -0600 )edit

Yes, that's a better way to do it, to avoid having to specify the output path. It's just been a while since I've runt through the command line and I guess eplaunch has made be lazy.

bbrannon4 gravatar image bbrannon4  ( 2019-12-10 14:18:34 -0600 )edit

Your Answer

Please start posting anonymously - your entry will be published after you log in or create a new account.

Add Answer

Training Workshops

Question Tools

1 follower


Asked: 2019-12-09 18:32:36 -0600

Seen: 105 times

Last updated: Dec 10 '19