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

Parse new set of keywords #1010

Merged
merged 15 commits into from
Dec 16, 2016
Merged

Parse new set of keywords #1010

merged 15 commits into from
Dec 16, 2016

Conversation

jokva
Copy link
Contributor

@jokva jokva commented Dec 14, 2016

This is largely addressing #999

This PR does not add support for any new keywords¹ except that we no longer crash on the keywords reported as problematic in #999. The keywords aren't exposed via EclipseState nor will they affect flow's behaviour, but at least we won't crash and burn on them. This is roughly equivalent to using PARSE_RANDOM_KEYWORD option in a Deck that uses these keywords, but more robust as opm-parser now has a concept of their structure.

¹ We already support several of the keywords GMWSET and FMWSET expand to, and this subset is obviously supported.

jokva added 15 commits December 13, 2016 12:19
GMWSET should, similar to ALL, expand to a set of group property
counting keywords.
FMWSET should, similar to ALL and GMWSET, expand to a set of field
property counting keywords.
Adding the DEBUG keyword specification. Makes us no longer choke on it,
but we're not using it for anything in partcular. The keyword name is
DEBUG_ since DEBUG often is defined as a macro in C++ and the auto
generation would then fail. We look up the name itself by using the
deck_names field.
Don't choke on LGR keyword.
@joakim-hove
Copy link
Member

I think this should just be merged right away!?

@jokva
Copy link
Contributor Author

jokva commented Dec 16, 2016

Happy to.

@jokva jokva merged commit da58abd into OPM:master Dec 16, 2016
@jokva jokva deleted the new-keyword-definitions branch December 16, 2016 08:48
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