Closed lisajulia closed 1 month ago
jenkins build this please
jenkins build this please
jenkins build this please
Interesting failure for python_basic:
Error: [.../opm-common/opm/io/eclipse/EclFile.cpp:245] Could not open file: './SPE1CASE1.UNRST'
ERROR: Uncaught std::exception when running tasklet: [.../opm-common/opm/io/eclipse/EclFile.cpp:245] Could not open file: './SPE1CASE1.UNRST'.
Probably this appeared previously and was not noticed. Question is whether this is a fatal failure or something that should be ignored.
Once that is sorted out, I'll merge.
Interesting failure for python_basic:
Error: [.../opm-common/opm/io/eclipse/EclFile.cpp:245] Could not open file: './SPE1CASE1.UNRST' ERROR: Uncaught std::exception when running tasklet: [.../opm-common/opm/io/eclipse/EclFile.cpp:245] Could not open file: './SPE1CASE1.UNRST'.
Probably this appeared previously and was not noticed. Question is whether this is a fatal failure or something that should be ignored.
Once that is sorted out, I'll merge.
Yes! Indeed! I'll look into that!
jenkins build this opm-simulators=5474 please
Interesting failure for python_basic:
Error: [.../opm-common/opm/io/eclipse/EclFile.cpp:245] Could not open file: './SPE1CASE1.UNRST' ERROR: Uncaught std::exception when running tasklet: [.../opm-common/opm/io/eclipse/EclFile.cpp:245] Could not open file: './SPE1CASE1.UNRST'.
Probably this appeared previously and was not noticed. Question is whether this is a fatal failure or something that should be ignored.
Once that is sorted out, I'll merge.
That is very strange, the case SPE1CASE1.DATA runs through when I call flow without python, but the test failed. Anyhow: removing the keyword UNIFOUT solved it, now the python test runs through as well.
@bska and @blattms: Can you have a look a this? Thanks! :)
jenkins build this please
@bska: Can you have another look here?
I might personally consider using one of the STL lock guards like
std::unique_lock
orstd::lock_guard
instead of directly calling thestd::mutex::lock()
andstd::mutex::unlock()
member functions, but in such simple test code it's probably a wash. On the other hand, I don't quite understand why we're using an owning raw pointer for theTaskletRunner
object in the new unit test. Would you care to elaborate on the reason for this?
Thanks, I've added comments here: https://github.com/OPM/opm-models/pull/909/commits/cedd34a379c211ab8a2e45577436e3e62e796e10, is that ok now? Otherwise I can also remove the assertion and outputs.
runner = std::make_unique<Opm::TaskletRunner>(numWorkers);
Yes, thanks! I've changed that now in https://github.com/OPM/opm-models/pull/909/commits/f1b4182ef636cfd19242da9227613ae2a995e538
jenkins build this please
As suggested by https://github.com/OPM/opm-common/pull/3870#issuecomment-1911661089, adding a failureFlag to the TaskletRunner, will solve https://github.com/OPM/opm-models/issues/871