Fix failed transition

[lymereJ]

Pull request overview

• Fixes Transition to 24.2 fails #10712
• Bypass end-use field if not assigned.

With the (very) small changes from that branch, the defect file can be transitioned.

NOTE: ENHANCEMENTS MUST FOLLOW A SUBMISSION PROCESS INCLUDING A FEATURE PROPOSAL AND DESIGN DOCUMENT PRIOR TO SUBMITTING CODE

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

[Myoldmopar]

@mjwitte I was going to write that I was concerned about using the LEN of Alphas here. But this is directly grabbing it from the IDFRecords array, so I guess it's going to be accurate. This is fine with me if you see it working for you @lymereJ and @mjwitte doesn't see any red flags.

[mjwitte]

I had a similar concern, but I think it's ok. I suppose at some point before release, we should run the full set of testfiles from 24.1 through transition and make sure they run without errors.

[Myoldmopar]

I won't hold this up just because it is written as lEN instead of LEN. :) This can go in. Thanks @lymereJ . And yes, @mjwitte, it would be reasonable to transition up all the 24.1 files...