Tolerate floating-point rounding in friction pressure-drop assert

[MatthiasBSchaefer]

Backport of modelica#4791 into this fork

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Bug Fixes
  • Improved validation of nominal pressure-drop parameters by accounting for small numerical rounding differences.
  • Prevented valid configurations from being rejected due to insignificant floating-point precision errors.

[coderabbitai]

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

SimpleFriction now validates dpNominal against an epsilon-adjusted dpNomMin threshold during initialization.

Changes

Friction parameter validation

Layer / File(s)	Summary
Relax nominal pressure-drop assertion Modelica/Thermal/FluidHeatFlow/BaseClasses/SimpleFriction.mo	The initialization assertion changes from dpNominal >= dpNomMin to a comparison against dpNomMin*(1 - 100*Modelica.Constants.eps).

Estimated code review effort: 1 (Trivial) | ~2 minutes

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5

✅ Passed checks (5 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.
Linked Issues check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Out of Scope Changes check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check	✅ Passed	The title clearly matches the main change: relaxing the friction pressure-drop assertion to tolerate floating-point rounding.

✨ Finishing Touches

📝 Generate docstrings

• Create stacked PR
• Commit on current branch

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Commit unit tests in branch MatthiasBSchaefer-PR4791

---

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}

[MSL-RegressionTesting-CI]

Please look here for details:https://serv.ltx.de/prs//3/Modelica/PR_comparison_report.html and https://serv.ltx.de/prs//3/ModelicaTest/PR_comparison_report.html

[MSL-RegressionTesting-CI]

Please look here for details: https://serv.ltx.de/prs//3/Modelica/PR_comparison_report.html and https://serv.ltx.de/prs//3/ModelicaTest/PR_comparison_report.html

[MSL-RegressionTesting-CI]

Please look here for details: https://serv.ltx.de/prs//3/Modelica/PR_comparison_report.html and https://serv.ltx.de/prs//3/ModelicaTest/PR_comparison_report.html

[MSL-RegressionTesting-CI]

Please look here for details: https://serv.ltx.de/prs//3/Modelica/PR_comparison_report.html and https://serv.ltx.de/prs//3/ModelicaTest/PR_comparison_report.html

[MSL-RegressionTesting-CI]

Please look here for details: https://serv.ltx.de/prs//3/Modelica/PR_comparison_report.html and https://serv.ltx.de/prs//3/ModelicaTest/PR_comparison_report.html

[MSL-RegressionTesting-CI]

Please look here for details: https://serv.ltx.de/prs//3/Modelica/PR_comparison_report.html and https://serv.ltx.de/prs//3/ModelicaTest/PR_comparison_report.html

[MSL-RegressionTesting-CI]

Please look here for details: https://serv.ltx.de/prs//3/Modelica/PR_comparison_report.html and https://serv.ltx.de/prs//3/ModelicaTest/PR_comparison_report.html

[MSL-RegressionTesting-CI]

Please look here for details: https://serv.ltx.de/prs//3/Modelica/PR_comparison_report.html and https://serv.ltx.de/prs//3/ModelicaTest/PR_comparison_report.html

[MSL-RegressionTesting-CI]

Please look here for details: https://serv.ltx.de/prs//3/Modelica/PR_comparison_report.html and https://serv.ltx.de/prs//3/ModelicaTest/PR_comparison_report.html

[MSL-RegressionTesting-CI]

Please look here for details: https://serv.ltx.de/prs//3/Modelica/PR_comparison_report.html and https://serv.ltx.de/prs//3/ModelicaTest/PR_comparison_report.html

[MSL-RegressionTesting-CI]

Please look here for details: https://serv.ltx.de/prs//3/Modelica/PR_comparison_report.html and https://serv.ltx.de/prs//3/ModelicaTest/PR_comparison_report.html