OilfieldToolsNet/opm-common
4
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Added test of require3D functionality from Summary

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Joakim Hove 2017-02-07 14:40:11 +01:00
parent 5a5d82fb86
commit f3a4029195
1 changed files with 37 additions and 0 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

37
tests/test_Summary.cpp
View File

@ -814,3 +814,40 @@ BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE(BLOCK_VARIABLES) {
// Cell is not active
BOOST_CHECK( !ecl_sum_has_general_var( resp , "BPR:2,1,10"));
}
/*
The SummaryConfig.require3DField( ) implementation is slightly ugly:
1. Which 3D fields are required is implicitly given by the
implementation of the Summary() class here in opm-output.
2. The implementation of the SummaryConfig.require3DField( ) is
based on a hardcoded list in SummaryConfig.cpp - i.e. there is a
inverse dependency between the opm-parser and opm-output modules.
The test here just to ensure that *something* breaks if the
opm-parser implementation is changed/removed.
*/
BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE( require3D )
{
setup cfg( "XXXX" );
const auto summaryConfig = cfg.es.getSummaryConfig( );
BOOST_CHECK( summaryConfig.require3DField( "PRESSURE" ));
BOOST_CHECK( summaryConfig.require3DField( "SGAS" ));
BOOST_CHECK( summaryConfig.require3DField( "SWAT" ));
BOOST_CHECK( summaryConfig.require3DField( "WIP" ));
BOOST_CHECK( summaryConfig.require3DField( "GIP" ));
BOOST_CHECK( summaryConfig.require3DField( "OIP" ));
BOOST_CHECK( summaryConfig.require3DField( "OIPL" ));
BOOST_CHECK( summaryConfig.require3DField( "OIPG" ));
BOOST_CHECK( summaryConfig.require3DField( "GIPL" ));
BOOST_CHECK( summaryConfig.require3DField( "GIPG" ));
BOOST_CHECK( summaryConfig.requireFIPNUM( ));
}