Refactor and check conformity #62
Open
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
oddvarlia
force-pushed
the
refactor_and_check_conformity
branch
2 times, most recently
from
ac06ba3 to
fd82751
Compare
Add check on zone conformity defined in RMS grid building jobs
oddvarlia
force-pushed
the
refactor_and_check_conformity
branch
from
3f58059 to
affe089
Compare
sindre-nistad
approved these changes
Mar 7, 2025
| 'the grid and parameters should be shared and realisation = 1' | ||
| ) | ||
| params = { | ||
| 'project': project, | ||
| 'model_file_name': get_specification_file( | ||
| _type=SpecificationType.RESAMPLE, _format=ModelFileFormat.YML, **kwargs | ||
| ), | ||
| 'debug_level': Debug.VERBOSE, | ||
| 'debug_level': 2, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We should probably still use the Enum so that it is clearer what the intension is
| @@ -29,14 +29,12 @@ | |||
| # (including the added trends for those that should have trends) is then copied back to the geomodel grid. | |||
|
|
|||
| from pathlib import Path | |||
| from roxar import Direction | |||
| from rmsapi import Direction | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We aware this will break backwards-compatibility of older versions of RMS.
We should probably create an internal module, which tries rmsapi and then fall back to roxar.
| # else: | ||
| # # One such case is 'mixed conform' | ||
| # raise NotImplementedError('{} is not supported'.format(conformity.name)) | ||
| # return field_values |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Commented out code can be removed
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is no longer needed, then?
| @@ -6,8 +6,7 @@ | |||
| use FIELD keywords for petrophysical properties in ERT in Assisted History Matching. | |||
| """ | |||
|
|
|||
| import roxar | |||
| import xml.etree.ElementTree as ET | |||
| import rmsapi | |||
Comment on lines
+274
to
+276
| if prop.type == rmsapi.GridPropertyType.continuous: | ||
| continuous_type_param_list.append(pname) | ||
| elif prop.type == roxar.GridPropertyType.discrete: | ||
| elif prop.type == rmsapi.GridPropertyType.discrete: |
| @@ -317,7 +316,7 @@ def from_ertbox_to_geogrid(project, params): | |||
| "Use 'Eclipse grid standard' (upper left corner) as " | |||
| 'common grid index origin (right-handed grid) in FMU projects using ERT.' | |||
| ) | |||
| if ertboxgrid_handedness != roxar.Direction.right: | |||
| if ertboxgrid_handedness != rmsapi.Direction.right: | |||
| params = { | ||
| 'project': project, | ||
| 'debug_level': Debug.ON, | ||
| 'debug_level': 1, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We should use the enum when possible to be clear what the intension is
| print('Copy 3D parameter from Geo grid to Ertbox grid') | ||
|
|
||
| params = { | ||
| 'project': project, | ||
| 'debug_level': Debug.ON, | ||
| 'debug_level': 1, |
| @@ -23,9 +23,11 @@ | |||
| from aps.utils.roxar.progress_bar import APSProgressBar | |||
| from aps.utils.check_rms_interactive_or_batch import check_rms_execution_mode | |||
|
|
|||
| from fmu.tools.rms.copy_rms_param_to_ertbox_grid import check_grid_layout | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We should add flu.tool as a dependency in pyproject.toml
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Reasons for making this change
ERT update of field parameters require only one grid size for all field parameters. To handle this for the cases that:
the help grid 'ERTBOX' is introduced. This grid is of fixed size and not realization dependent. The geometry of this help grid is of no importance except that the lateral position and number of grid cells should match as far as possible the geogrid in map view.
A workflow updating field parameters involve a step where the geogrid field parameters for each zone is copied into the ERTBOX in a unique way and also that the values in the ERTBOX grid is copied back into the geogrid zones.
This mapping between geogrid and ERTBOX grid is the same whether the APS method for facies modelling is used in RMS or whether petrophysical parameters are used as field parameters to be updated in ERT.
To simplify maintenance it is an advantage to have this mapping located in one common repo for both applications using APS and for applications updating petrophysical field parameters.
The fmu-tools is chosen to be the location for the common code, and this involves a refactoring of the APS code to use the common code for the mapping.
The mapping depends on the conformity or grid layout of the zones in the geogrid. Up to now the conformity is specified by the users without any check that it actually is consistent with the grid layout. For APS this is specified in the GUI and for the petrophysical field parameters, it is specified in the input settings for the function copy_rms_param.
There exist, however a possibility for grids built in RMS with most common grid layout settings to get the information about grid layout from the RMS job directly. In the current PR , the user specified settings for grid layout in APS is checked with the RMS grid building job when possible. The check is possible if:
To handle the various cases, the check will accept the user specified settings for conformities for the zones if the check is not possible or the conformities are not implemented. If the grid conformities are one of the implemented versions (Proportional, TopConform, BaseConform), and there is a mismatch between the user specified conformities of a zone and the conformity used in the grid building job for the zone, either an error is raised or the conformities from the grid building job is returned and used depending on in which context the check (and get conformity) is used.
Related issues
Issue #47
Issue #59