Push of PileFoundation added

[WojciechBuda00]

NOTE: Depends on

Issues addressed by this PR

Closes #1674

Test files

#1674-PushPileFoundation

Changelog

Additional comments

[pawelbaran]

Initial code review so far, will do the testing now and continue digging in the code 👍

[pawelbaran]

@BHoMBot check compliance
@BHoMBot check core

[bhombot-ci]

@pawelbaran to confirm, the following actions are now queued:

• check code-compliance
• check documentation-compliance
• check project-compliance
• check branch-compliance
• check dataset-compliance
• check copyright-compliance
• check core

[pawelbaran]

More general comments:

• you need to merge develop into your branch, now yours is far behind develop
• from what I saw in the source family, pile depth should be instance parameter, not type? if that's the case, you will need to set pile depth explicitly, both in create and update
  
• pile foundation pushed from GH looks as follows:
  
  ...after pulling back from Revit, it is like this:
  
  ...the piles are much longer, which is caused by the fact that you are calculating pile depth as pile top minus pile bottom, which is not correct: the piles in GH are a simplification snapped to the upper face of the cap. Instead, I would try the following:
  1. find top and bottom of the pile
  2. check if top elevation == bottom of the pile cap => if not, warning that the pile depth has been set based on bottom of the cap and bottom elevation of the pile
  3. set the depth = bottom of the pile cap - pile bottom
• I would consider tweaking the naming:
  • pile foundation, I would consider renaming the type to {thickness}mm thk. Ø{diameter}, assuming that, as above, pile depth is instance param
    
  • nested pile, freeform suffix looks suspicious
    
• provided test script does not show any update, also top foundation (square) produces 2 foundations with 2 piles each instead of 1 foundation with 4 piles (missing flatten)

[pawelbaran]

@BHoMBot check compliance

[bhombot-ci]

@pawelbaran to confirm, the following actions are now queued:

• check code-compliance
• check documentation-compliance
• check project-compliance
• check branch-compliance
• check dataset-compliance
• check copyright-compliance

There are 3 requests in the queue ahead of you.

[pawelbaran]

@BHoMBot check compliance

[bhombot-ci]

@pawelbaran to confirm, the following actions are now queued:

• check code-compliance
• check documentation-compliance
• check project-compliance
• check branch-compliance
• check dataset-compliance
• check copyright-compliance

There are 1 requests in the queue ahead of you.

[pawelbaran]

@BHoMBot check core
@BHoMBot check null-handling
@BHoMBot check serialisation

[bhombot-ci]

@pawelbaran to confirm, the following actions are now queued:

• check core
• check null-handling
• check serialisation

There are 1 requests in the queue ahead of you.

[pawelbaran]

@BHoMBot check required

[bhombot-ci]

@pawelbaran to confirm, the following actions are now queued:

• check code-compliance
• check documentation-compliance
• check project-compliance
• check core
• check null-handling
• check serialisation
• check versioning
• check installer

There are 7 requests in the queue ahead of you.

[pawelbaran]

Code reviewed and tested, happy to approve 👍

[pawelbaran]

@BHoMBot check copyright-compliance
@BHoMBot check dataset-compliance

[bhombot-ci]

@pawelbaran to confirm, the following actions are now queued:

• check copyright-compliance
• check dataset-compliance

[pawelbaran]

@BHoMBot check ready-to-merge

[bhombot-ci]

@pawelbaran to confirm, the following actions are now queued:

• check ready-to-merge

[pawelbaran]

@BHoMBot this is a DevOps instruction. I am requesting neutral checks on: ready-to-merge

[bhombot-ci]

@pawelbaran I have provided neutral checks to the checks requested. These checks will need to be run properly to obtain full results.

[pawelbaran]

@sakanni FYI I've just set the rtm check to neutral as per offline chat