ENH: include (fault) surfaces from FaultRoom plugin

[jcrivenaes]

Address #362

[perolavsvendsen]

See comments. Not entirely sure if class: surface is the best option, although I don't think it's "wrong". If we merge this, need to clarify with later users of these data. E.g. there may be some assumptions somewhere that class: surface == "an IRAP Binary formatted regular surface".

• Explicitly check with REP
• Explicitly check with Sumo
• Generally check with other potential consumers

[jcrivenaes]

class: surface == "an IRAP

I think it was never the intention that class surface is a regular grid (nor a specific file format), so surface is more generic. Then the format and layout fields are needed by consumer in order to parse in a correct manner

[janbjorge]

Looks good to me, i cant comment on the domain related questions.

[perolavsvendsen]

Still waiting for feedback from REP, Webviz, DynaGeo and others who may work on the assumption that class: surface == An IRAP Binary formatted file.

[janbjorge]

I think you need to rebase here as well before merging, else some of the schema changes will be lost. Any the poor person who checksout from main will get "schema out of sync errors".

[jcrivenaes]

Still waiting for feedback from REP, Webviz, DynaGeo and others who may work on the assumption that class: surface == An IRAP Binary formatted file.

Any progress here?

[perolavsvendsen]

Any progress here?

Some... But I don't think we have to wait for everything to be ready everywhere. I think we just merge this PR if we are happy.

[perolavsvendsen]

I say we merge this.

[mferrera]

Some comments for your consideration but LGTM. I cannot comment on the fault room specifics, of course