search

OPM / opm-parser

http://www.opm-project.org
11 stars 44 forks source link

Fixing history matching wells part 1 #1179

Closed GitPaean closed 6 years ago

GitPaean commented 6 years ago

This is the first part split from https://github.com/OPM/opm-parser/pull/1168 We agreed to split that PR to make it easier to let it in, this is the first part.

The major part is that for WCONHIST control production wells, they always have a BHP limit, and they can have another RATE limit instead of always having all the phase rate limits.

joakim-hove commented 6 years ago

We agreed to split that PR to make it easier to let it in, this is the first part.

Thank you for splitting - hopefully I remember enough of our discussion to review this meaningfully.

GitPaean commented 6 years ago

Thank you for splitting - hopefully I remember enough of our discussion to review this meaningfully.

It is fine. It is a rather messy area and we probably will make new tests to verify when it is not straightforward to figure out by just reading.

GitPaean commented 6 years ago

The travis failure is in opm-core, which should be addressed by OPM/opm-core#1196

joakim-hove commented 6 years ago

jenkins build this opm-core=1196 with downstreams please

joakim-hove commented 6 years ago

OK - I am ready to merge this when Jenkins goes through. @atgeirr - can I merge: OPM/opm-core#1196

atgeirr commented 6 years ago

can I merge: OPM/opm-core#1196

Sure!

GitPaean commented 6 years ago

Please wait a little bit from OPM/opm-simulators#1362 . I will report back. I did not manage to draw an certain conclusion from last round of testing.

GitPaean commented 6 years ago

This PR and OPM/opm-core#1196 can be merged without OPM/opm-simulators#1362 . It shows very tiny performance fluctuation for Norne and it does not impact model 2.

There is still confusion regarding to OPM/opm-simulators#1362. It needs to be improved before merging.