Remove dead code

[rraustad]

Pull request overview

• Fixes nothing. Remove dead code.
• DESCRIBE PURPOSE OF THIS PULL REQUEST

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

[mjwitte]

Would it be useful to change this into an assert?

[rraustad]

I'm not sure,. I think this is the type of thing that should only be done once in the simulation, just not sure where to do that. Maybe move this code up into the if (UniqueCriteriaCheckIndex <= 0) block? I would think those 4 Nums would always be non-zero but this code would be better served there than here (and with the assert).

[rraustad]

The other thing that could be improved is that BranchNum and CompNum are not used. Those could be removed.

[Myoldmopar]

This seems simple enough. I'll double check it is still happy with today's develop and get this in.

[Myoldmopar]

Yeah it's all happy. The doc/build failures are not related. This is good to go. Thanks @rraustad