Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

update reference data for spe9 spe3 multpvv_model2 spe1 spe5 spe9group fetkovich_2d base_model2 spe12p editnnc_model2 ctaquifer_2d_oilwater spe1nowells polymer2d multflt_model2 faults_model_1 base_model_1 wecon_wtest polymer_injectivity multiply_tranxyz_model2 spe1_metric_vfp1 msw_2d_h spe1_foam hysteresis_model2 udq spe12 msw_3d_hfa multregt_model2 polymer_oilwater msw_model_1 swatinit_model2 nnc endscale_model2 multxyz_model2 spe1oilgas spe1thermal #159

Merged

Conversation

jenkins4opm
Copy link

Reason: OPM/opm-common#979
OPM/opm-simulators#1987

libecl = e2429574117e2f8a9651f8423c00de6d3ef11297
opm-common = e4027b41fc089d66d98066cc6fea331e00f7ddb3
opm-grid = db8ccca0f667b1d37530a8d711a07284e54579b1
opm-material = 77202e291ddc05ebb8fa133d896a25765308b8a9
opm-models = 5bfb639795fd7abbc140d105039346e99ebffb95
opm-simulators = 33f238e38d19cc31f305f838e0cde6cfbc26194b

…p fetkovich_2d base_model2 spe12p editnnc_model2 ctaquifer_2d_oilwater spe1nowells polymer2d multflt_model2 faults_model_1 base_model_1 wecon_wtest polymer_injectivity multiply_tranxyz_model2 spe1_metric_vfp1 msw_2d_h spe1_foam hysteresis_model2 udq spe12 msw_3d_hfa multregt_model2 polymer_oilwater msw_model_1 swatinit_model2 nnc endscale_model2 multxyz_model2 spe1oilgas spe1thermal

Reason: OPM/opm-common#979
        OPM/opm-simulators#1987

libecl         = e2429574117e2f8a9651f8423c00de6d3ef11297
opm-common     = e4027b41fc089d66d98066cc6fea331e00f7ddb3
opm-grid       = db8ccca0f667b1d37530a8d711a07284e54579b1
opm-material   = 77202e291ddc05ebb8fa133d896a25765308b8a9
opm-models     = 5bfb639795fd7abbc140d105039346e99ebffb95
opm-simulators = 33f238e38d19cc31f305f838e0cde6cfbc26194b
@jenkins4opm jenkins4opm self-assigned this Sep 4, 2019
@atgeirr
Copy link
Member

atgeirr commented Sep 4, 2019

Lots of SMSPEC changes here. Did we have a consensus on what tends to cause those changes?

@akva2
Copy link
Member

akva2 commented Sep 4, 2019

no. if you hex dump and diff you will see there's a few values near the end that changes. i don't know what those values contains, i tried to ping @tskille but got no response. @GitPaean said it's an old issue re-appearing.

@GitPaean
Copy link
Member

GitPaean commented Sep 4, 2019

Lots of SMSPEC changes here.

It is that all the SMSPEC change here. The old issue is because there is some unnitialized values that are random, it should be fixed. Not knowing what is the cause now.

@joakim-hove
Copy link
Member

The old issue is because there is some unnitialized values that are random, it should be fixed.

I (thought) I fixed one such issue in libecl quite some time ago; either that fix was incomplete or this is a new issue. I don't know - if I can get a copy of the files I can take a look.

In general the SMSPEC files have quite a lot of information which is not used; it should of course be correctly initialized, but should not lead to problems in the regression testing either.

@bska
Copy link
Member

bska commented Sep 4, 2019

you will see there's a few values near the end that changes

Aha! That brings a little more light to issue. I converted the current BASE_MODEL_1.SMSPEC file to formatted and the last entry is

 'STARTDAT'           6 'INTE'
           1           1        2000  -693560688       32623 -1190967296

These values are supposed to be a timestamp (day, month, year, hour, minute, second) corresponding to the simulation's start point (essentially a copy of the data in the START keyword), but the hour-minute-second values are clearly uninitialised.

I haven't looked into what we'd need to do to correct the issue, but I'm currently working in this area and I can have a look. Note that @tskille reported this issue in OPM/opm-common#915.

@atgeirr
Copy link
Member

atgeirr commented Sep 4, 2019

I'm currently working in this area and I can have a look.

Does that mean we should not merge this data update?

@bska
Copy link
Member

bska commented Sep 4, 2019

I'm currently working in this area and I can have a look.

Does that mean we should not merge this data update?

No, it does not mean that. It does however mean that we'll have at least one more SMSPEC-related data update coming if we do merge it at this time.

@joakim-hove
Copy link
Member

Aha! That brings a little more light to issue. I converted the current BASE_MODEL_1.SMSPEC file to formatted and the last entry is

OK - a fix is here: equinor/resdata#651

@atgeirr
Copy link
Member

atgeirr commented Sep 4, 2019

It does however mean that we'll have at least one more SMSPEC-related data update coming if we do merge it at this time.

I'm fine with that, so I'll merge this set of PRs now to get Jenkins green and move on.

@atgeirr atgeirr merged commit 0b1e8d6 into OPM:master Sep 4, 2019
@tskille
Copy link
Contributor

tskille commented Sep 4, 2019

These values are supposed to be a timestamp (day, month, year, hour, minute, second)

the 6th item should be micro seconds (not seconds).

@joakim-hove
Copy link
Member

the 6th item should be micro seconds (not seconds).

yes but no - in the context where this comment was written the value is seconds - what is actually written to disk is seconds * 1000000 - which of course still only has seconds resolution; but that is another matter.

@jenkins4opm jenkins4opm deleted the update_opm-common_979_opm-simulators_1987 branch December 16, 2019 15:18
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants