Re: [OPM] Eclipse parser

Thank you for doing this, I had a build failure though (reported as issue), but it can be easily fixed. Thank you - fix on the way. I agree with your proposed plan, and I think it can be kept separate from opm-core for now. It may be more natural to move deck-reading simulators out of

Re: [OPM] Boost versions

Actually we are compiling and linking against 1.45 on Red Hat 5 these days. However, it seems like Red Hat 6 ships with version 1.41. Hence, version = 1.41 is unproblematic from my end. Any larger version and we need to discuss how to support it (static linking to avoid dependency issues or

Re: [OPM] Boost versions

: opm-boun...@opm-project.orgmailto:opm-boun...@opm-project.org [mailto:opm-boun...@opm-project.org] On Behalf Of Joakim Hove Sent: 15. november 2013 15:55 To: opm@opm-project.orgmailto:opm@opm-project.org Subject: Re: [OPM] Boost versions Actually we are compiling and linking against 1.45 on Red

Re: [OPM] Use of ERT in Parser?

Sounds like a good plan. In the not-so-distant future we might consider renaming opm-parser - opm-eclipse? Joakim -Original Message- From: Bård Skaflestad [mailto:bard.skafles...@sintef.no] Sent: 24. januar 2014 11:29 To: Joakim Hove; opm@opm-project.org Subject: RE: Use of ERT

Re: [OPM] Uing opm-parser with opm-{autdiff, core}/opm-parser-integrate

I just wanted to test the opm-parser-integrate branch of opm-autdiff, but I must be missing something vital as opm-core does not find opm-parser. I did check it out and build it, but there were not CMake package configuration files (opm-parser-config.cmake, opm-parser-config-version.cmake)

Re: [OPM] Uing opm-parser with opm-{autdiff, core}/opm-parser-integrate

Please forget my invalid comment. cJSON is already included in opm-parser. The only problem on my system was that I use a subdir for building that you did not exspect (opm-parallel). I posted a pull request that fixes this. Good! Joakim

Re: [OPM] [opm-core] DUNE dependency

Right. I think you've identified a deficiency in the build system of opm-parser. It apparently can only work in the context of a fully cloned repository. Yes - that is indeed right; the install target queried git for a list of share/ files to install. That is fixed in the (not yet

Re: [OPM] [opm-core] DUNE dependency

Yes - that is indeed right; the install target queried git for a list of share/ files to install. That is fixed in the (not yet merged) PR: https://github.com/OPM/opm-parser/pull/139 This is now merged - would be good if Julio would try to build opm-parser (it really should be

Re: [OPM] Greetings from Kai

I am Kai and I am a new employee in SINTEF. I just came here nearly three weeks ago. I will work on the OPM project. Before I came here, I worked as a postdoc in KAUST in Saudi Arabia. I have been working on the multiphase flow simulation, reservoir simulation, and something related to the

Re: [OPM] Using old eclipse files with new parser.

I guess you could try to delete some of the keywords that create trouble, if they are unneeded and not too many. Or even better: add the keyword definitions to opm-parser. They are just JSON definitions and are located in opm/parser/share/keywords In general I agree with Andreas

Re: [OPM] Using old eclipse files with new parser.

hm, okay. does Eclipse accept that particular deck? if yes, it may be a good idea to also become a bit less strict in opm-parser. (maybe we should just produce a warning instead of an error?) Forget it. Eclipse eats more or less anything; we need all the safety we can get. This is the

[OPM] opm-parser build improvements

Hello; as of the merging of: https://github.com/OPM/opm-parser/pull/156 earlier today we have significantly improved the opm-parser build system. The build system will now detect changes to json config and rebuild if required, with any manual manipulation of the build/generated-source/* files.

[OPM] Regarding transmissibility multipliers

Hello, Following the closed PR: https://github.com/OPM/opm-parser/pull/241 I have tried to read and understand how the MULT([XYZ])-? and FAULTS/MULTFLT keywords interact. This is my summary of the situation, comments and critique highly welcome. MULTX: This keyword is a multiplier for the

Re: [OPM] Regarding transmissibility multipliers

On the other hand, if 'MULTFLT' is used in *EDIT* (or, shudder, *SCHEDULE*), then it modifies the trans values directly. The SCHEDULE section I think is unrealistic to support initially; as for the EDIT section my understanding of the situation is that it is mostly relevant if the

Re: [OPM] Regarding transmissibility multipliers

I think you're right. You've outlined a very pragmatic approach. I think we should run with suggestion. Good; given the current change in focus I think I will start by properly internalizing the content of the FAULTS keyword - hopefully MULTREGT will not come about and

Re: [OPM] issue with compiling opm-core

Initially I reacted with some trepidation when I read this suggestion: Note that, instead of starting a project from scratch, it is probably easier to just clone the OPM module which is closest to what you would like to achieve and extend it by your stuff. But from a pragmatic point of

[OPM] Events in the Schedule object

Hello; following the discussion of how to best implement transmissibility multipliers, I have thought briefly of how we could support MULT(???) transmissibility modifier keywords in the Schedule section. Now I still strongly believe we should not think seriously about this on the current side

[OPM] Require Boost:regex

Hello; In the PR: https://github.com/OPM/opm-parser/pull/249 Andreas has implemented support for regex matching of keywords in the deck. We need this functionality, and modulo minor fixes I intend to merge this PR. However, the PR uses Boost::regex; so going with it as it is now will introduce

Re: [OPM] Require Boost:regex

not know about regex.h (*booohhh*) have a nice (remaining) weekend Andreas On Saturday, June 28, 2014 15:40:55 Joakim Hove wrote: Hello; In the PR: https://github.com/OPM/opm-parser/pull/249 Andreas has implemented support for regex matching of keywords in the deck. We need this functionality

Re: [OPM] semantics of transmissibilty

I'm currently struggling with the semantics of the transmissibilities Hmm - if this is related to starting to use the EclipseState::TransMult class I think you are digging a bit to deep? Joakim --- The information

[OPM] Breaking builds

Hi; The current situation with builds breaking everywhere is of course unfortunate, but it is also an illustration that the build system is quite difficult to maintain, anything else than improving that is fixing symptoms. 1. Rolk has made a recipe for distributing these build system

[OPM] Rename parser?

Hello; After reviewing: https://github.com/OPM/opm-core/pull/560 I though that maybe the EclipseWriter stuff also should be moved to the parser? The parser is already a quite fat and heavy 'parser' - and maybe renaming it to something like EclipseInter / EclipseIO / ...; or alternatively we

[OPM] The MULTREGT keyword

Hello; I have started looking at the MULTREGT keyword - it turned out to be more complex than I thought. Good if you read through: https://gist.github.com/joakim-hove/c6d5b9ad918704f8e922 and mull a bit over it. Joakim

Re: [OPM] New repo opm-utilities

Allright; here comes my 2 cents on the topic: 1. The repo in question was for utilities which are not part of the build process; so the build process is 100% unaffected by this new repo. 2. Updating the build system in opm is admittedly quite cumbersome; my suggestion would be

Re: [OPM] Logging

Thank you for responding. 1. The logging facility should be implemented as a singleton, i.e. it should not be necessary to pass in a reference to a log class to all methods/functions which might want to add a log message. Not so sure. This gives an inherent synchronization and state

Re: [OPM] Multilinear interpolation

My current count of external dependencies bundled/managed in the opm codebase is: Tinyxml: opm-core cJSON : opm-parser Eigen : opm-autodiff With linterp we will have four(?). Maybe it would be a good idea to have all of these managed/hosted by the build system? -Original Message-

Re: [OPM] Improvements(?) in opm-parser

output mentioned in PR821. I hope more people will read through this thread and voice an opinion. J From: Alf Birger Rustad Sent: 3. juni 2015 15:17 To: Joakim Hove; opm@opm-project.org Subject: RE: Improvements(?) in opm-parser We'll burn that bridge when we get there; I believe we

Re: [OPM] Installation sub directories

This was discussed at the OPM meeting, and my recollection from the discussion on sibling builds is -a majority of developers use the feature -it does not add significant complexity when determining which libraries/binaries are actually linked -it is not a significant maintenance burden to keep

Re: [OPM] Installation sub directories

I may be a bit behind on this, but is there special treatment of directories called 'src' and 'build'? If so, I can see how that can lead to some confusion [] No - it is not that bad. The src directory will always be ${ROOT}/${module} - so that is simple. The stem of

Re: [OPM] Installation sub directories

-project.org] on behalf of Joakim Hove [jo...@statoil.com] Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 1:12 PM To: opm@opm-project.orgmailto:opm@opm-project.org Subject: Re: [OPM] Installation sub directories This was discussed at the OPM meeting, and my recollection from the discussion on sibling builds is -a majority

[OPM] Installation sub directories

Thank you for the detailed questions - that gives me an opportunity to explain. But before we delve into technical details: 1. As is probably clear I would like to remove the sibling build support - but I am by no means hell bent; I will certainly back down at some point. 2. This

Re: [OPM] Refactoring of the fully implicit solver class

There seems to be two main alternatives: Could code generation be a third alternative? J --- The information contained in this message may be CONFIDENTIAL and is intended for the addressee only. Any unauthorised use, dissemination

Re: [OPM] Installation sub directories

[] except on one technical comment concerning sibling builds. Sibling build trees do not need to be in a location relative to the source trees and do moreover, not have to have the same name for all modules. Well - I'll take your word for it; but I still insist there must be some

[OPM] Fwd: How static are wells? / How to get the union of the well connectivities

Sorry; my reply went off the wrong way: -- Forwarded message -- From: Joakim Hove joakim.h...@gmail.com Date: Tue, May 26, 2015 at 9:42 PM Subject: Re: [OPM] How static are wells? / How to get the union of the well connectivities To: Markus Blatt mar...@dr-blatt.de 1. Given

Re: [Opm] flow: Usage of restart utility

> > > My open question is, what is meant by time step. I assume that this is > the simulation step number in the ouput of flow. OK; this is my mental picture of the timeline in an ECLIPSE simulation: X : Report step - given with the DATES or TSTEP kewyord in the Schedule section of the

Re: [Opm] Property Elements Outside valid limits

OK; This error is triggered here: https://github.com/OPM/opm-parser/blob/621a8c9f676d828d6a3c63d5a463291f8918719c/opm/parser/eclipse/EclipseState/Grid/GridProperty.cpp#L342 The only callsites are here:

[Opm] New ert-version

We are in the process of refactoring/improving the Eclipse output from OPM; that is the part of the code with the tightest bonds between ERT and OPM, and it might be necessary to update ERT a bit more frequently for a period (will try hard to keep the rate of interface changes down). Right now we

[Opm] New opm-repo

Hello; we have just created a new repository: opm-output: https://github.com/OPM/opm-output - the new repository should contain routines for generating output from opm simulators. Currently there is zero actual code in the repository, but the necessary (absolute) minimum cmake support is in there

Re: [Opm] Parser error when processing the EQUALS keyword

> > > In the GRID section I was trying to parse an EQUALS keyword defined as > follows: > > EQUALS > TOPS 1125 1 11 1 1 1 / ​ > / > > The meaning of this would be assign a depth of 1125, to the block I=1, > J=1, K=1. > Am I right to assume that TOPS under EQUAL is not supported yet?

Re: [Opm] ERT cmake problem

> are there objections to switch to the standard directory structure? (basically this means moving everything in the 'devel' directory to the top level of the repository.) I volunteer to do the patch. There are no objections to this - on the contrary the patch would be welcome. What has been on

Re: [Opm] adding custom cell data to output and visualize it.

> > > let us imagine that I have a custom vector containing data attached to > the cells. Is there a way to output this data in addition to the > default values to eclipse output? How? > If this is static - i.e. initial data; you can quite simply add to the simprops list here:

Re: [Opm] Open well with zero perforations valid?

Well - from a physical perspective it certainly does not make sense. But that was maybe not the question? J 8. sep. 2016 10:08 skrev "Markus Blatt" følgende: > Hi, > > as I only have a slight idea about the eclipse file format I need to > ask this. > > Is it valid to

[Opm] Calculating ROIP and RGIP

[ OK - this is slightly emberrassing; but I have reached the limit of my understanding of the black-oil model. ] When calculating the summary quantities ROIP (Region oil in place) and RGIP (Region gas in place) we should sum up over the correct phase, and the amount of oil/gas in the "other

[Opm] Travis trouble

Hello, at the moment all Travis builds fail due to timeout. According to google Travis has a 50 minutes time limit, it is my impression that they have "suddenly?" started to enforce that limit. Joakim Få Outlook for Android

[Opm] ERT Update required

Hello; as part of this merge: https://github.com/OPM/opm-output/pull/155 a new version of ert is required. Joakim --- The information contained in this message may be CONFIDENTIAL and is intended for the addressee only. Any

[Opm] Merge fest: ERT update required

Hello; I have now merged two sets of PR's which both require an update to ERT: 1. https://github.com/Ensembles/ert/pull/1467 + https://github.com/OPM/opm-data/pull/194 2. https://github.com/Ensembles/ert/pull/1439 +

Re: [Opm] Help with installation

You need the libecl library with Eclipse specific functionality. I would *strongly* recommend to just use the master branch when building from source. 1. Go to github.com/Statoil/libecl and build and install the libecl library. 2. Start with the master branch of opm-parser. This should just

Re: [Opm] New version of libecl required

Ehh sorry - corrected message: Hello; I intend to merge: https://github.com/OPM/opm-output/pull/197 on friday. When that is merged you must have libecl updated to at least include: https://github.com/Statoil/libecl/pull/129 Joakim

[Opm] New version of libecl soon required.

See the PR message here: https://github.com/OPM/opm-parser/pull/1112 Joakim --- The information contained in this message may be CONFIDENTIAL and is intended for the addressee only. Any unauthorized use, dissemination of the

[Opm] Change from ERT to libecl

Hello, we have split the rather large ERT repository in three parts. The part relevant to OPM is now called 'libecl' and can be found here: https://github.com/Statoil/libecl The libecl repository contains the parts from ERT relevant to OPM/Resinsight. The build system has been updated to

Re: [Opm] Travis flooded with CMake warnings

Hello; what has happened here is: 1. libecl requires cmake 2.8.12 (seems there are quite large changes in the 2.8.xx series of cmake). 2. Travis will by default build on Ubuntu 12.04; with this: https://github.com/OPM/opm-parser/blob/master/.travis.yml#L11 a backport of cmake

Re: [Opm] Problem with installing python-ert.ecl

Hello; the Resinsight suggestion is probably your best bet for plotting, but the python wrappers can be very convenient for other general tasks, if you are so inclined. I am afraid I can not assist you with the package problem, but installing libecl from source is quite simple: 1. git

[Opm] Volume changes: libecl udate required:

I have just merged three PR's listed below. Following this merge you will need to update libecl to get correct numerical values for some of the integration tests in opm-simulator. The change is a preparation to change the volume calculation used in OPM.

Re: [Opm] Problem with installing python-ert.ecl

>From your traceback it looks like your summaryplot script is not 100% up to >date; so please start by updating that. If it still does not work you can come >back to me on jo...@statoil.com Joakim From: Opm on behalf of Rui Xu Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2018

[Opm] New libecl required

Hello; on monday I intend to merge: https://github.com/OPM/opm-common/pull/350 When that is merged you must update your libecl installation to include: https://github.com/Statoil/libecl/pull/353 Joakim

[Opm] MULTREGT issues

Hello Manoel; of course the error message should have had more details - it seem very clear when you are writing the code itself; but of course totally opaque to a user. I guess there is something to be learned from that. Anyway the source of the error is your MULTREGT keyword where you have

Re: [Opm] About json (jsonObject) class in the "opm-common" module.

> 1, in the Class ParserKeyword, a new data type "Json::JsonObject" was > introduced. I don't understand what the purpose for this new data. If we > just use Class ParserItem and Class ParserRecord, could the parse process > be done? > In principle you do not need the Json; the whole purpose

[Opm] 2018.10 release

Dear OPM community, I am happy to announce the 2018.10 release. Binary packages for Red-Hat Enterprise Linux 6 and 7 and Ubuntu 16.04 and 18.04 are available for download. In addition to the usual list of fixes and improvements two significant improvements include: 1. flow can now write

[Opm] Libecl upgrade required

___ Opm mailing list Opm@opm-project.org https://opm-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opm

Re: [Opm] Reading EGRID in Flow

INCLUDE expects "normal" ASCII formatted keyword files. GDFILE will read a EGRID file. Observe however that the GDFILE keyword has quite recently been implemented, and it is not yet available in the currently released version of flow (2018.10) - it will be available in the 2019.04 version which

Re: [Opm] OPM output

I have a quick question. Is it possible to get more diagnostics from Flow > as the DATA file is parsed? > This is a long and never-ending story. I think the answer is no - in the sense that there are no switches you can use to get more output. However, things can always be improved. > For

Re: [Opm] Dependencies revisited

Another recurring issue is Boost. If we jump to Debian Buster and Ubuntu > 19.04, this entails that we can bump minimum version of GCC to 8.3.0. Is > this sufficient to consider removing Boost as a dependency? > The parser uses boost spirit::qi which at some stage proved to give a performance

[Opm] 2020.04 release

Dear opm community; we are approaching April and the 2020.04 release of opm/flow is soon imminent, and it is time to start planning the release process. If someone has planned to be the release manager for the 2020.04 release that is cool, otherwise opm-op can be responsible for managing the

Re: [Opm] OPM Flow multi-node simulations stuck at domain decomposition step

Are you certain that you actually pick up the correct compiler - my guess is that you use the system compiler which is too old. Try: " source /opt/rh/devtoolset-7/enable" - wipe the build directory and rerun cmake. Joakim tor. 12. mar. 2020, 22:17 skrev Yogi Pandey : > Hi Atgeirr, > > I've

Re: [Opm] GECON equivalent.

I am guessing that the END overrides the ACTIONX opener for the command and ENDACTIO is not found. Yes you are right; the END keyword is detected during basic parsing and the whole parsing stops prematurely.  > Is there any way to stop the run in this case (conditionally). No not yet. But:

Re: [Opm] t=0 plotting in ResInsight

Sorry; but opm/flow does not output any summary data for t=0. On the endless list ... :-) Joakim On 4/7/20 1:54 PM, Stephen, Karl D wrote: Hi, I tried to plot the early production data (WBHP) for a simulation. The data are below as shown by ecl_summary. I used ResInsight to create a

[Opm] Release 2020.04

Hello; this is just a friendly reminder that the release process will commence tomorrow - on the afternoon of Wednesday 22nd I will create the release branches; so far the Milestone 2020.04 on GitHub has not seen much use. Joakim ___ Opm mailing

[Opm] Release 2020.04

Hello; I would like to remind all relevant parties about the upcoming 2020.04 release. The release branches will be created on wednesday 22.nd of April - don't miss the train; and please mark open PR's which you want to get in with "2020.04 Release" label. Timeline:

[Opm] Release 2020.04

Dear Opm community; I have been appointed release manager for the 2020.04 release, this email is to inform about my plans for the release. _Features to be included:_ The general principle is that everything which is merged at the time the release branches is created is included as part of

Re: [Opm] 2020.04-rc3

I encourage you all to test the RC3 packages. There will be at least one additional release with some build fixes. The plan is to create a RC4 / final on Thursday 07. May. Joakim On 5/4/20 8:31 AM, arne.morten.kvarv...@sintef.no wrote: 2020.04 rc3 builds for ubuntu bionic and ubuntu focal

[Opm] Release 2020.04 rc4

OK; now rc4 versions of the release packages are out. Hopefully this will be the last round of rc releases. Since the rc4 packages were created at least this: https://github.com/OPM/opm-simulators/pull/2606 is a candidate which could have been backported to the release; however I have

[Opm] 2020.04 release - it is for real

Dear opm-community; we have now completed the the new 2020.04 release - binary packages for RedHat and Ubuntu avaliable as described here: https://opm-project.org/?page_id=36 As usual there has been a myriad of fixes and improvements since the 2019.10 release, but some notable points

Re: [Opm] File formats

My take on this is: 1. Yes I see the value of a transposed file format - however the value is quite limited before it is implemented in post processing tools. The feasability of implementing/using said format in post processing tools should therefor be an important criteria. 2. I

Re: [Opm] Flow OPM error messages: Header name and type should be enclosed with ' and "Unknown enum state string: 4"

SC013683. ___ Opm mailing list Opm@opm-project.org https://opm-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opm -- OPM-OP AS Heyerdahlsvei 12b, 0777 Oslo, Norway Joakim Hove CEO T: +47 92 68 57 04 E: joakim.h...@opm-op.com ___ Opm mailin

Re: [Opm] FW: Flow OPM error messages: Header name and type should be enclosed with ' and "Unknown enum state string: 4" - UPDATE

ilkinson, David) 2. Re: Flow OPM error messages: Header name and type should be enclosed with ' and "Unknown enum state string: 4" (Joakim Hove) -- Message: 1 Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2020 17:36:30 + From: "Wi

[Opm] Pimp your favorite error message

)" where you think the error messages should be "upgraded" beyond the exception.what() message from the failing callsite. Joakim -- OPM-OP AS Heyerdahlsvei 12b, 0777 Oslo, Norway Joakim Hove CEO T: +47 92 68 57 04 E: joakim.h...@opm-op.com __

Re: [Opm] Modelling UGS with flow

://opm-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opm -- OPM-OP AS Heyerdahlsvei 12b, 0777 Oslo, Norway Joakim Hove CEO T: +47 92 68 57 04 E: joakim.h...@opm-op.com ___ Opm mailing list Opm@opm-project.org https://opm-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opm

[Opm] New dependency

to be problematic we will revert it. Joakim -- OPM-OP AS Heyerdahlsvei 12b, 0777 Oslo, Norway Joakim Hove CEO T: +47 92 68 57 04 E: joakim.h...@opm-op.com ___ Opm mailing list Opm@opm-project.org https://opm-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opm

[Opm] Initialize restart run from restart file

Dear opm user/developer/follower/ ... I encourage you to read: https://github.com/OPM/opm-simulators/pull/2634 carefully, and possibly voice an opinion. Please observe that when this is merged restarting your favorite case might not work any longer. Joakim

Re: [Opm] Will dual porosity be available in any near-future release?

ydland ___ Opm mailing list Opm@opm-project.org https://opm-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opm -- OPM-OP AS Heyerdahlsvei 12b, 0777 Oslo, Norway Joakim Hove CEO T: +47 92 68 57 04 E: joakim.h...@opm-op.com ___ Opm m

[Opm] Suggestion: new debug configuration

stions! Joakim __ __ -- OPM-OP AS Heyerdahlsvei 12b, 0777 Oslo, Norway Joakim Hove CEO T: +47 92 68 57 04 E: joakim.h...@opm-op.com ___ Opm mailing list Opm@opm-project.org https://opm-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opm

Re: [Opm] Suggestion: new debug configuration

me dependent configuration like the suggested DebugConfig - is through the Schedule class - coupling the two through some kind of statefull back channel seems very iffy from an implementation point of view. ____ From: Opm on behalf of Joakim Hove Sent: 03 June 2021 10:

Re: [Opm] Opm Digest, Vol 65, Issue 1

in the RUNSPEC section it should apply to the entire deck; but I do suggest that it is not possible to have different keywords in e.g. RUNSPEC and GRID section - as that will increase implementation complexity significantlky. J -- OPM-OP AS Heyerdahlsvei 12b, 0777 Oslo, Norway Joakim Hove CEO T: +47