Rds/kjw/function compare swh dist systems and components #1544
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
KarenWGard
requested review from
JasonGlazer,
supriyagoel,
weilixu,
claperle and
JacksonJ-KC
claperle
reviewed
Nov 6, 2024
| - **RMD2** | ||
| - **compare_context_str** | ||
| - **swh_distribution_id** | ||
| - **errors** |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What does this errors do? Suggest explaining that here
There was a problem hiding this comment.
errors is a list that is one of the required inputs for compare_context_str. Passing it through allows any errors reported by compare_context_str to be accessible by the rule that called this function
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can return error list instead of boolean?
An empty list means full match and with message means there are diffs.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@weilixu - this is an excellent idea. I updated the function per your suggestion. To confirm - does compare_context_str always append an error to the errors list when the result is false?
claperle
reviewed
Nov 6, 2024
| - check if this distribution ID is in model 2: `if RMD2_swh_system_and_equip_dict[swh_distribution_id]:` | ||
| - get the dictionary of all SWH equipment (pumps, tanks, SWH use, dist system, etc) for the given swh_distribution_id for RMD2: `RMD2_swh_equipment_dict = RMD2_swh_system_and_equip_dict[swh_distribution_id]` | ||
| - get the actual distribution equipment associated with this ID from model 1: `RMD2_swh_distribution = get_component_by_id(RMD2, swh_distribution_id)` | ||
| - otherwise, add an error and return FALSE: `else: errors << "SWH Distribution System " + swh_distribution_id + " not found in one of the two RMDs"; return FALSE` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How is this error message delivered since this function only retyrns a boolean?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
because errors is a list that was passed into this function, any items added to the list will be accessible by the rule that called that function.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'll have to trust you on that. Not sure my python knowledge is good enough to understand how this can be accessible if the function only returns TRUE or FALSE.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
recommend writing that the function returns the errors and the boolean because this is psuedo code we don't want any assumptions about the scope of variables to be miscommunicated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Karen going to add note to describe that error is returned
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I left the same comment - return a list makes sense.
claperle
reviewed
Nov 16, 2024
| - In addition to the equipment connected to the distribution system, there's also equipment that's part of the service water heating distribution system that are not direct child objects of the distribution system. We need to check these objects. | ||
| - first, check ServiceWaterHeatingEquipment - when we execute compare_context_pair, this will also check any child objects that exist (SolarThermal and SWH validation point). Start by checking if there are the same number of objects in models 1 and 2. We need to do the length check here because it's not checked implicitly as part of compare_context_pair. For example, if there are more pieces of equipment in the model 1 than model 2, comparing each item found in model 2 could return a false positive: `if len(RMD1_swh_equipment_dict["SWHHeatingEq"]) == len(RMD2_swh_equipment_dict["SWHHeatingEq"]):` | ||
| - look at each SWHEquipment in the model 1: `for swh_eq_id in RMD1_swh_equipment_dict["SWHHeatingEq"]:` | ||
| - get the SWH equipment for models 1 and 2: `swh_eq_1 = get_component_by_id(RMD1, swh_eq_id); swh_eq_2 = get_component_by_id(RMD2, swh_eq_id)` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think the semi colon is python syntax. if it is not recommend revising.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
swh_eq_1, swh_eq_2 = get_component_by_id(RMD1, swh_eq_id), get_component_by_id(RMD2, swh_eq_id)
claperle
reviewed
Nov 16, 2024
| - otherwise there is an unequal number of equipment entries. Add our own error to the errors list: `else: errors << "Unequal numbers of SWH Equipment between the two models for " + swh_distribution_id` | ||
| - next, check Pumps - this will also recursively check PumpOutputValidationPointPumpOutputValidationPoint: `if len(RMD1_swh_equipment_dict["Pumps"]) == len(RMD2_swh_equipment_dict["Pumps"]):` | ||
| - look at each SWHEquipment in the proposed model: `for pump_id in RMD1_swh_equipment_dict["Pumps"]:` | ||
| - get the pumps for models 1 and 2: `pump_1 = get_component_by_id(RMD1, pump_id); pump_2 = get_component_by_id(RMD2, pump_id)` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Same comment as above regarding ;
JacksonJ-KC
reviewed
Nov 20, 2024
| Logic: | ||
| - create the list errors: `errors = []` | ||
| - use the function get_swh_components_associated_with_each_swh_distribution_system to get a dictionary of SWH equipment associated with each Distribution System for model 1 (pumps, tanks, SWH use, distribution system, etc): `RMD1_swh_system_and_equip_dict = get_swh_components_associated_with_each_swh_distribution_system(RMD1)` | ||
| - use the function get_swh_components_associated_with_each_swh_distribution_system to get a dictionary of SWH equipment associated with each Distribution System for model 1 (pumps, tanks, SWH use, distribution system, etc): `RMD2_swh_system_and_equip_dict = get_swh_components_associated_with_each_swh_distribution_system(RMD2)` |
JacksonJ-KC
reviewed
Nov 20, 2024
|
|
||
| - check if this distribution ID is in model 2: `if RMD2_swh_system_and_equip_dict[swh_distribution_id]:` | ||
| - get the dictionary of all SWH equipment (pumps, tanks, SWH use, dist system, etc) for the given swh_distribution_id for RMD2: `RMD2_swh_equipment_dict = RMD2_swh_system_and_equip_dict[swh_distribution_id]` | ||
| - get the actual distribution equipment associated with this ID from model 1: `RMD2_swh_distribution = get_component_by_id(RMD2, swh_distribution_id)` |
JacksonJ-KC
reviewed
Nov 20, 2024
| - check if this distribution ID is in model 1: `if RMD1_swh_system_and_equip_dict[swh_distribution_id]:` | ||
| - get the dictionary of all SWH equipment (pumps, tanks, SWH use, dist system, etc) for the given swh_distribution_id for RMD1: `RMD1_swh_equipment_dict = RMD1_swh_system_and_equip_dict[swh_distribution_id]` | ||
| - get the actual distribution equipment associated with this ID from model 1: `RMD1_swh_distribution = get_component_by_id(RMD1, swh_distribution_id)` | ||
| - otherwise, return FALSE by adding an error to the list: `else: errors << "SWH Distribution System " + swh_distribution_id + " not found in one of the two RMDs"` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
<< is not python syntax
JacksonJ-KC
reviewed
Nov 20, 2024
| - otherwise, return FALSE by adding an error to the list: `else: errors << "SWH Distribution System " + swh_distribution_id + " not found in one of the two RMDs"` | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| - Compare the distribution in the two models using the function compare_context_pair. compare_context_pair is recursive, so by sending the function the distribution systems, it is also checking the tanks and piping that are child objects of the distribution systems. If the comparison fails, we add an error to the errors list indicating the id of the swh distribution system that failed comparison: `if !compare_context_pair(RMD1_swh_distribution, RMD2_swh_distribution, $, extra_schema_for_SWH_comparison.json, true, compare_context_str, errors): errors << "Comparison of SWH Distribution System: " + swh_distribution_id + " failed."` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
<< is not python syntax
JacksonJ-KC
reviewed
Nov 20, 2024
| - look at each SWHEquipment in the model 1: `for swh_eq_id in RMD1_swh_equipment_dict["SWHHeatingEq"]:` | ||
| - get the SWH equipment for models 1 and 2: `swh_eq_1 = get_component_by_id(RMD1, swh_eq_id); swh_eq_2 = get_component_by_id(RMD2, swh_eq_id)` | ||
| - compare the two SWH equipment using compare_context_pair. By passing in the same errors list, any new errors get appended to the list. If the comparison fails, we add an error to the errors list indicating the id of the swh equipment that failed comparison: `if !compare_context_pair(swh_eq_1, swh_eq_2, $, extra_schema_for_SWH_comparison.json, true, compare_context_str, errors): errors << "Comparison of SWH Equipment: " + swh_eq_id + " failed."` | ||
| - otherwise there is an unequal number of equipment entries. Add our own error to the errors list: `else: errors << "Unequal numbers of SWH Equipment between the two models for " + swh_distribution_id` |
JacksonJ-KC
reviewed
Nov 20, 2024
| - next, check Pumps - this will also recursively check PumpOutputValidationPointPumpOutputValidationPoint: `if len(RMD1_swh_equipment_dict["Pumps"]) == len(RMD2_swh_equipment_dict["Pumps"]):` | ||
| - look at each SWHEquipment in the proposed model: `for pump_id in RMD1_swh_equipment_dict["Pumps"]:` | ||
| - get the pumps for models 1 and 2: `pump_1 = get_component_by_id(RMD1, pump_id); pump_2 = get_component_by_id(RMD2, pump_id)` | ||
| - compare the two pumps using compare_context_pair. If the comparison fails, we add an error to the errors list indicating the id of the swh pump that failed comparison: `if !compare_context_pair(pump_1, pump_2, $, extra_schema_for_SWH_comparison.json, true, compare_context_str, error_str): errors << "Comparison of SWH Pump: " + pump_id + " failed."` |
JacksonJ-KC
reviewed
Nov 20, 2024
| - look at each SWHEquipment in the proposed model: `for pump_id in RMD1_swh_equipment_dict["Pumps"]:` | ||
| - get the pumps for models 1 and 2: `pump_1 = get_component_by_id(RMD1, pump_id); pump_2 = get_component_by_id(RMD2, pump_id)` | ||
| - compare the two pumps using compare_context_pair. If the comparison fails, we add an error to the errors list indicating the id of the swh pump that failed comparison: `if !compare_context_pair(pump_1, pump_2, $, extra_schema_for_SWH_comparison.json, true, compare_context_str, error_str): errors << "Comparison of SWH Pump: " + pump_id + " failed."` | ||
| - otherwise, there are an an unequal number of pump entries: `else: errors << "Unequal number of pumps in the two models for SWH Distribution System " + swh_distribution_id` |
JacksonJ-KC
reviewed
Nov 20, 2024
| - first, check ServiceWaterHeatingEquipment - when we execute compare_context_pair, this will also check any child objects that exist (SolarThermal and SWH validation point). Start by checking if there are the same number of objects in models 1 and 2. We need to do the length check here because it's not checked implicitly as part of compare_context_pair. For example, if there are more pieces of equipment in the model 1 than model 2, comparing each item found in model 2 could return a false positive: `if len(RMD1_swh_equipment_dict["SWHHeatingEq"]) == len(RMD2_swh_equipment_dict["SWHHeatingEq"]):` | ||
| - look at each SWHEquipment in the model 1: `for swh_eq_id in RMD1_swh_equipment_dict["SWHHeatingEq"]:` | ||
| - get the SWH equipment for models 1 and 2: `swh_eq_1 = get_component_by_id(RMD1, swh_eq_id); swh_eq_2 = get_component_by_id(RMD2, swh_eq_id)` | ||
| - compare the two SWH equipment using compare_context_pair. By passing in the same errors list, any new errors get appended to the list. If the comparison fails, we add an error to the errors list indicating the id of the swh equipment that failed comparison: `if !compare_context_pair(swh_eq_1, swh_eq_2, $, extra_schema_for_SWH_comparison.json, true, compare_context_str, errors): errors << "Comparison of SWH Equipment: " + swh_eq_id + " failed."` |
JacksonJ-KC
reviewed
Nov 20, 2024
| - check if this distribution ID is in model 1: `if RMD1_swh_system_and_equip_dict[swh_distribution_id]:` | ||
| - get the dictionary of all SWH equipment (pumps, tanks, SWH use, dist system, etc) for the given swh_distribution_id for RMD1: `RMD1_swh_equipment_dict = RMD1_swh_system_and_equip_dict[swh_distribution_id]` | ||
| - get the actual distribution equipment associated with this ID from model 1: `RMD1_swh_distribution = get_component_by_id(RMD1, swh_distribution_id)` | ||
| - otherwise, return FALSE by adding an error to the list: `else: errors << "SWH Distribution System " + swh_distribution_id + " not found in one of the two RMDs"` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think this should say "return FALSE"
JacksonJ-KC
reviewed
Nov 20, 2024
| - check if this distribution ID is in model 2: `if RMD2_swh_system_and_equip_dict[swh_distribution_id]:` | ||
| - get the dictionary of all SWH equipment (pumps, tanks, SWH use, dist system, etc) for the given swh_distribution_id for RMD2: `RMD2_swh_equipment_dict = RMD2_swh_system_and_equip_dict[swh_distribution_id]` | ||
| - get the actual distribution equipment associated with this ID from model 1: `RMD2_swh_distribution = get_component_by_id(RMD2, swh_distribution_id)` | ||
| - otherwise, return FALSE by adding an error to the list: `else: errors << "SWH Distribution System " + swh_distribution_id + " not found in one of the two RMDs"` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think this should say "return FALSE"
JacksonJ-KC
reviewed
Nov 20, 2024
| - otherwise, return FALSE by adding an error to the list: `else: errors << "SWH Distribution System " + swh_distribution_id + " not found in one of the two RMDs"` | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| - Compare the distribution in the two models using the function compare_context_pair. compare_context_pair is recursive, so by sending the function the distribution systems, it is also checking the tanks and piping that are child objects of the distribution systems. If the comparison fails, we add an error to the errors list indicating the id of the swh distribution system that failed comparison: `if !compare_context_pair(RMD1_swh_distribution, RMD2_swh_distribution, $, extra_schema_for_SWH_comparison.json, true, compare_context_str, errors): errors << "Comparison of SWH Distribution System: " + swh_distribution_id + " failed."` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
$? I suggest ignoring any attempt for proper syntax to call compare_context_pair because there is no RDS for it - I would just describe the arguments that you know you want to pass to it
There was a problem hiding this comment.
any suggestions on how to communicate this effectively?
JacksonJ-KC
reviewed
Nov 20, 2024
| - first, check ServiceWaterHeatingEquipment - when we execute compare_context_pair, this will also check any child objects that exist (SolarThermal and SWH validation point). Start by checking if there are the same number of objects in models 1 and 2. We need to do the length check here because it's not checked implicitly as part of compare_context_pair. For example, if there are more pieces of equipment in the model 1 than model 2, comparing each item found in model 2 could return a false positive: `if len(RMD1_swh_equipment_dict["SWHHeatingEq"]) == len(RMD2_swh_equipment_dict["SWHHeatingEq"]):` | ||
| - look at each SWHEquipment in the model 1: `for swh_eq_id in RMD1_swh_equipment_dict["SWHHeatingEq"]:` | ||
| - get the SWH equipment for models 1 and 2: `swh_eq_1 = get_component_by_id(RMD1, swh_eq_id); swh_eq_2 = get_component_by_id(RMD2, swh_eq_id)` | ||
| - compare the two SWH equipment using compare_context_pair. By passing in the same errors list, any new errors get appended to the list. If the comparison fails, we add an error to the errors list indicating the id of the swh equipment that failed comparison: `if !compare_context_pair(swh_eq_1, swh_eq_2, $, extra_schema_for_SWH_comparison.json, true, compare_context_str, errors): errors << "Comparison of SWH Equipment: " + swh_eq_id + " failed."` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
same comment for describing arguments and $
JacksonJ-KC
reviewed
Nov 20, 2024
| - next, check Pumps - this will also recursively check PumpOutputValidationPointPumpOutputValidationPoint: `if len(RMD1_swh_equipment_dict["Pumps"]) == len(RMD2_swh_equipment_dict["Pumps"]):` | ||
| - look at each SWHEquipment in the proposed model: `for pump_id in RMD1_swh_equipment_dict["Pumps"]:` | ||
| - get the pumps for models 1 and 2: `pump_1 = get_component_by_id(RMD1, pump_id); pump_2 = get_component_by_id(RMD2, pump_id)` | ||
| - compare the two pumps using compare_context_pair. If the comparison fails, we add an error to the errors list indicating the id of the swh pump that failed comparison: `if !compare_context_pair(pump_1, pump_2, $, extra_schema_for_SWH_comparison.json, true, compare_context_str, error_str): errors << "Comparison of SWH Pump: " + pump_id + " failed."` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
same comment for describing arguments and $
JacksonJ-KC
reviewed
Nov 20, 2024
| - first, check ServiceWaterHeatingEquipment - when we execute compare_context_pair, this will also check any child objects that exist (SolarThermal and SWH validation point). Start by checking if there are the same number of objects in models 1 and 2. We need to do the length check here because it's not checked implicitly as part of compare_context_pair. For example, if there are more pieces of equipment in the model 1 than model 2, comparing each item found in model 2 could return a false positive: `if len(RMD1_swh_equipment_dict["SWHHeatingEq"]) == len(RMD2_swh_equipment_dict["SWHHeatingEq"]):` | ||
| - look at each SWHEquipment in the model 1: `for swh_eq_id in RMD1_swh_equipment_dict["SWHHeatingEq"]:` | ||
| - get the SWH equipment for models 1 and 2: `swh_eq_1 = get_component_by_id(RMD1, swh_eq_id); swh_eq_2 = get_component_by_id(RMD2, swh_eq_id)` | ||
| - compare the two SWH equipment using compare_context_pair. By passing in the same errors list, any new errors get appended to the list. If the comparison fails, we add an error to the errors list indicating the id of the swh equipment that failed comparison: `if !compare_context_pair(swh_eq_1, swh_eq_2, $, extra_schema_for_SWH_comparison.json, true, compare_context_str, errors): errors << "Comparison of SWH Equipment: " + swh_eq_id + " failed."` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It is important to know that compare_context_pair() needs to use one of the items in the pair as the "index". I would suggest indicating that the longer list should always be used as the index
JacksonJ-KC
reviewed
Nov 20, 2024
| - next, check Pumps - this will also recursively check PumpOutputValidationPointPumpOutputValidationPoint: `if len(RMD1_swh_equipment_dict["Pumps"]) == len(RMD2_swh_equipment_dict["Pumps"]):` | ||
| - look at each SWHEquipment in the proposed model: `for pump_id in RMD1_swh_equipment_dict["Pumps"]:` | ||
| - get the pumps for models 1 and 2: `pump_1 = get_component_by_id(RMD1, pump_id); pump_2 = get_component_by_id(RMD2, pump_id)` | ||
| - compare the two pumps using compare_context_pair. If the comparison fails, we add an error to the errors list indicating the id of the swh pump that failed comparison: `if !compare_context_pair(pump_1, pump_2, $, extra_schema_for_SWH_comparison.json, true, compare_context_str, error_str): errors << "Comparison of SWH Pump: " + pump_id + " failed."` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
suggest indicating that the longer list should always be used as the index
JacksonJ-KC
reviewed
Nov 20, 2024
| - next, check Pumps - this will also recursively check PumpOutputValidationPointPumpOutputValidationPoint: `if len(RMD1_swh_equipment_dict["Pumps"]) == len(RMD2_swh_equipment_dict["Pumps"]):` | ||
| - look at each SWHEquipment in the proposed model: `for pump_id in RMD1_swh_equipment_dict["Pumps"]:` | ||
| - get the pumps for models 1 and 2: `pump_1 = get_component_by_id(RMD1, pump_id); pump_2 = get_component_by_id(RMD2, pump_id)` | ||
| - compare the two pumps using compare_context_pair. If the comparison fails, we add an error to the errors list indicating the id of the swh pump that failed comparison: `if !compare_context_pair(pump_1, pump_2, $, extra_schema_for_SWH_comparison.json, true, compare_context_str, error_str): errors << "Comparison of SWH Pump: " + pump_id + " failed."` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure why this is checking if !compare_context_pair. If the function returns a list then the list will behave as a truthy value if it is not empty
There was a problem hiding this comment.
old logic - I've removed if !
JacksonJ-KC
reviewed
Nov 20, 2024
| - get the actual distribution equipment associated with this ID from model 1: `RMD2_swh_distribution = get_component_by_id(RMD2, swh_distribution_id)` | ||
| - otherwise, return FALSE by adding an error to the list: `else: errors << "SWH Distribution System " + swh_distribution_id + " not found in one of the two RMDs"` | ||
|
|
||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
if the list of errors is not empty at this point I think we should return it and prevent the rest of the logic
JacksonJ-KC
reviewed
Nov 20, 2024
| - first, check ServiceWaterHeatingEquipment - when we execute compare_context_pair, this will also check any child objects that exist (SolarThermal and SWH validation point). Start by checking if there are the same number of objects in models 1 and 2. We need to do the length check here because it's not checked implicitly as part of compare_context_pair. For example, if there are more pieces of equipment in the model 1 than model 2, comparing each item found in model 2 could return a false positive: `if len(RMD1_swh_equipment_dict["SWHHeatingEq"]) == len(RMD2_swh_equipment_dict["SWHHeatingEq"]):` | ||
| - look at each SWHEquipment in the model 1: `for swh_eq_id in RMD1_swh_equipment_dict["SWHHeatingEq"]:` | ||
| - get the SWH equipment for models 1 and 2: `swh_eq_1 = get_component_by_id(RMD1, swh_eq_id); swh_eq_2 = get_component_by_id(RMD2, swh_eq_id)` | ||
| - compare the two SWH equipment using compare_context_pair. By passing in the same errors list, any new errors get appended to the list. If the comparison fails, we add an error to the errors list indicating the id of the swh equipment that failed comparison: `if !compare_context_pair(swh_eq_1, swh_eq_2, $, extra_schema_for_SWH_comparison.json, true, compare_context_str, errors): errors << "Comparison of SWH Equipment: " + swh_eq_id + " failed."` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
When writing a call to compare_context_pair I suggest writing it with the following format and ignoring the other details for the purposes of RDS:
compare_context_pair(index_context=swh_eq_1, compare_context=swh_eq_2, extra_schema='extra_schema_for_SWH_comparison.json', error_msg_list=errors)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
thanks! I've implemented this
JacksonJ-KC
reviewed
Nov 20, 2024
| - first, check ServiceWaterHeatingEquipment - when we execute compare_context_pair, this will also check any child objects that exist (SolarThermal and SWH validation point). Start by checking if there are the same number of objects in models 1 and 2. We need to do the length check here because it's not checked implicitly as part of compare_context_pair. For example, if there are more pieces of equipment in the model 1 than model 2, comparing each item found in model 2 could return a false positive: `if len(RMD1_swh_equipment_dict["SWHHeatingEq"]) == len(RMD2_swh_equipment_dict["SWHHeatingEq"]):` | ||
| - look at each SWHEquipment in the model 1: `for swh_eq_id in RMD1_swh_equipment_dict["SWHHeatingEq"]:` | ||
| - get the SWH equipment for models 1 and 2: `swh_eq_1 = get_component_by_id(RMD1, swh_eq_id); swh_eq_2 = get_component_by_id(RMD2, swh_eq_id)` | ||
| - compare the two SWH equipment using compare_context_pair. By passing in the same errors list, any new errors get appended to the list. If the comparison fails, we add an error to the errors list indicating the id of the swh equipment that failed comparison: `if !compare_context_pair(swh_eq_1, swh_eq_2, $, extra_schema_for_SWH_comparison.json, true, compare_context_str, errors): errors << "Comparison of SWH Equipment: " + swh_eq_id + " failed."` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
same comment about if !compare_context_pair
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
rule that contains the functionality for using compare_context_pair for SWH systems - this logic is called twice in the re-written rule 11-1