Updated jutulState to work with Jutul 0.2.11, JutulDarcy 0.2.7 #26
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
gbruer15
force-pushed
the
gbruer/jutuldarcy-0-2-7
branch
from
603d5c8 to
0368972
Compare
- Fixed Phase Viscosity difference. - Set reference pressure to same value. - Fixed reference densities.
mloubout
reviewed
Jul 20, 2023
|
@ziyiyin97 and/or @mloubout Are you good with me merging this? I can't get the porosity gradient test for the vertical well to pass, so I marked it as a test to skip so that CI tests still pass. |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This MR updates to the latest version of Jutul and JutulDarcy. I believe the only API change in Jutul/JutulDarcy was the type definition for the state.
The gradient test for the vertical well is failing again, with the gradient being off by about 8%. I'm not sure why. The pressure dominates the misfit, so my guess is that this error is due inaccuracy in pressure values or gradients in the simulator.
I'll check for other API changes in a few days to make sure I'm not missing something.