Document everest forward models

[frode-aarstad]

Issue
Resolves #8835

Approach
Short description of the approach

(Screenshot of new behavior in GUI if applicable)

• PR title captures the intent of the changes, and is fitting for release notes.
• Added appropriate release note label
• Commit history is consistent and clean, in line with the contribution guidelines.
• Make sure unit tests pass locally after every commit (git rebase -i main --exec 'pytest tests/ert/unit_tests -n logical -m "not integration_test"')

When applicable

• When there are user facing changes: Updated documentation
• New behavior or changes to existing untested code: Ensured that unit tests are added (See Ground Rules).
• Large PR: Prepare changes in small commits for more convenient review
• Bug fix: Add regression test for the bug
• Bug fix: Create Backport PR to latest release

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 45.61404% with 62 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 90.95%. Comparing base (ebc4d03) to head (7d844b8).
Report is 437 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...t/shared/_doc_utils/forward_model_documentation.py	33.92%	37 Missing ⚠️
src/ert/shared/_doc_utils/everest_jobs.py	52.77%	17 Missing ⚠️
src/ert/shared/_doc_utils/__init__.py	57.89%	8 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #8940      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   91.00%   90.95%   -0.06%     
==========================================
  Files         349      352       +3     
  Lines       21641    21691      +50     
==========================================
+ Hits        19695    19729      +34     
- Misses       1946     1962      +16     

Flag	Coverage Δ
cli-tests	39.11% <0.00%> (-0.08%)	⬇️
gui-tests	72.76% <0.00%> (-0.13%)	⬇️
performance-tests	49.60% <0.00%> (-0.12%)	⬇️
unit-tests	79.67% <45.61%> (-0.03%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[yngve-sk]

(left=docs on this PR, right=docs on main)

Overall looks good, and is much closer to having same format as ERT forward model steps.

I tried building both and comparing and some things should require another look:

1. I think you added some docs for previously undocumented forward model steps, which is great, but the naming in the built docs is a bit different, for example fm_compute_economics, I guess there should be a more "displayable" name there.
2. The front page of the Forward Model Jobs section is missing the introduction that can be seen on the screenshot on the right
3. The Eclipse simulator docs seem to be missing, but it is also in reality missing from the Everest jobs? Or well, it is there through ERT's default installed forward model steps in site config, which complicates the docs thing a bit more.

[yngve-sk]

Is this needed? I see there are similar entries in there from before, and wondering the same thing about them (just relevant, but outside scope of PR)

[frode-aarstad]

I do not think the other functions in this interface provides what we want and I don't want to change existing behavior. Or what were you thinking about?

[yngve-sk]

Might be wrong here, but I think @hookimpl just means it is an implementation, so this empty function just provides an empty documentation, so it should be possible to remove it without any side effects (I think, needs to be double checked)

[yngve-sk]

Why [0] here instead of merging dicts? Maybe non-relevant edge case but what if there were other installed python packages containing forward models for everest (currently only everest-models though)

[frode-aarstad]

Will fix

[frode-aarstad]

(left=docs on this PR, right=docs on main)

Overall looks good, and is much closer to having same format as ERT forward model steps.

I tried building both and comparing and some things should require another look:

1. I think you added some docs for previously undocumented forward model steps, which is great, but the naming in the built docs is a bit different, for example `fm_compute_economics`, I guess there should be a more "displayable" name there.

2. The front page of the `Forward Model Jobs` section is missing the introduction that can be seen on the screenshot on the right

3. The Eclipse simulator docs seem to be missing, but it is also in reality missing from the Everest jobs? Or well, it is there through ERT's default installed forward model steps in site config, which complicates the docs thing a bit more.

1. I will add a 'full name' for the 'new' forward models
2. I will add the introduction
3. Not sure what to do with the Eclipse simulator docs. Do they belong here amongst the forward models? Any thoughts @oyvindeide

[yngve-sk]

Almost there, ecl100 docs now also look exactly same as before. Did you add the "display names" commit yet? I'm still getting this:

[frode-aarstad]

Almost there, ecl100 docs now also look exactly same as before. Did you add the "display names" commit yet? I'm still getting this:

Its in the everest models PR equinor/everest-models#64

[yngve-sk]

Nice job! LGTM