Propagate and show lsf exec_hosts in run_dialog label

[andreas-el]

Issue Resolves https://github.com/equinor/ert/issues/999

• [ ] PR title captures the intent of the changes, and is fitting for release notes.
• [ ] Added appropriate release note label
• [ ] Commit history is consistent and clean, in line with the contribution guidelines.
• [ ] Make sure unit tests pass locally after every commit (git rebase -i main --exec 'pytest tests/ert/unit_tests -n logical -m "not integration_test"')

When applicable

• [ ] When there are user facing changes: Updated documentation
• [ ] New behavior or changes to existing untested code: Ensured that unit tests are added (See Ground Rules).
• [ ] Large PR: Prepare changes in small commits for more convenient review
• [ ] Bug fix: Add regression test for the bug
• [ ] Bug fix: Create Backport PR to latest release

[berland]

Should we do an attempt to obtain a FQDN when printing the hostnames?

[andreas-el]

Should we do an attempt to obtain a FQDN when printing the hostnames?

We could. Currently bjobs will output like this;

(rhel8-bleed-py38-env + bleeding-py38-rhel8) [andrli@st-lintgx0264 komodo]$ bjobs -noheader -o "jobid stat exec_host" 568264
568264 RUN 4*st-rsb17-17-04

Do note that 4*st-rsb17-17-04 is not a valid hostname, but I thought this would be useful to see how many slots were assigned on that specific node.

[berland]

Do note that 4*st-rsb17-17-04 is not a valid hostname, but I thought this would be useful to see how many slots were assigned on that specific node.

Right. Maybe just better print the string as-is from bjobs to avoid having to parse something we don't really control.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark:

Project coverage is 91.43%. Comparing base (8fef8f4) to head (028a112).

Additional details and impacted files

```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## main #8824 +/- ## ======================================= Coverage 91.42% 91.43% ======================================= Files 344 344 Lines 21120 21140 +20 ======================================= + Hits 19309 19329 +20 Misses 1811 1811 ``` | [Flag](https://app.codecov.io/gh/equinor/ert/pull/8824/flags?src=pr&el=flags&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=equinor) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [cli-tests](https://app.codecov.io/gh/equinor/ert/pull/8824/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=equinor) | `39.56% <32.00%> (-0.03%)` | :arrow_down: | | [gui-tests](https://app.codecov.io/gh/equinor/ert/pull/8824/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=equinor) | `73.52% <84.00%> (+0.02%)` | :arrow_up: | | [performance-tests](https://app.codecov.io/gh/equinor/ert/pull/8824/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=equinor) | `50.14% <40.00%> (-0.04%)` | :arrow_down: | | [unit-tests](https://app.codecov.io/gh/equinor/ert/pull/8824/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=equinor) | `80.12% <100.00%> (+0.02%)` | :arrow_up: | Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. [Click here](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/carryforward-flags?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=equinor#carryforward-flags-in-the-pull-request-comment) to find out more.

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[andreas-el]

There was an additional comment on the original issue;

While at it, perhaps more realization metadata could be contemplated; RUNPATH, job queue name, LSF log files,

In my opinion the most valuable of these might be the job_queue_name ? The process of adding this will be identical to what was done for exec_hosts, even so for the tests, so this should be very low hanging fruit atm.