Skip to content

Conversation

@larsevj
Copy link
Collaborator

@larsevj larsevj commented Sep 17, 2025

  • Fixes searchpath in runmetoupdate.sh

@larsevj larsevj force-pushed the fix_and_update_opm_keywords branch from 0c20a68 to b2d39d2 Compare September 17, 2025 10:44
Comment on lines +73 to +89
{
"item": 10,
"name": "EQLOPT04",
"value_type": "INT",
"comment": "This item is ECLIPSE300 specific"
},
{
"item": 11,
"name": "EQLOPT5",
"value_type": "INT",
"comment": "This item is ECLIPSE300 specific"
},
{
"item": 12,
"name": "BLACK_OIL_INIT_HG",
"value_type": "INT",
"default": 0
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think the test failed due to more columns expected in the new version of opmkeywords

@larsevj larsevj force-pushed the fix_and_update_opm_keywords branch from e727b37 to 2f5f424 Compare October 16, 2025 14:46
@larsevj
Copy link
Collaborator Author

larsevj commented Oct 16, 2025

This last test is not entirely clear to me how to solve. Since EQLOPT04 and (5) do not have any default values they get assigned None, from

rec_dict[item_name] = jsonitem.get("default", None)

(note that a few lines above one assigns np.nan... in another code path).
When the keyword dataframes are merged, one gets None values for the rows belonging to EQUIL and nan for the row belonging to the other keywords that do not have values for this column...
The reason the test fails is because when the dataframe is written to csv and read again they all become nan, whereas the one from csv2res has a mix of None and nan..

@larsevj larsevj force-pushed the fix_and_update_opm_keywords branch from f154a74 to eb9e2c1 Compare December 1, 2025 09:28
@larsevj larsevj force-pushed the fix_and_update_opm_keywords branch from 0deabe8 to cdf2256 Compare December 1, 2025 11:54
@larsevj larsevj requested a review from alifbe December 1, 2025 12:11
@larsevj
Copy link
Collaborator Author

larsevj commented Dec 1, 2025

Not sure if the changed names are breaking or not?

@alifbe
Copy link
Collaborator

alifbe commented Dec 1, 2025

Not sure if the changed names are breaking or not?

Which changed names?

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.

2 participants