Specifically, the tests
if (!wells->type[self_index] == INJECTOR)
if (!wells->type[self_index] == PRODUCER)
produced the expected results *only* because INJECTOR==0 and PRODUCER==1
in the WellType enumeration, thus (!INJECTOR == PRODUCER) and
(!PRODUCER == INJECTOR).
Installing the (much) more appropriate
if (wells->type[self_index] != INJECTOR)
if (wells->type[self_index] != PRODUCER)
is not only more readable, it is also future-proof and scales better if
we ever introduce new WellTypes (e.g., a MONITOR).
It complains about not finding a match for the pair<> template class,
because the first parameter (this) is allegedly const. However, this
isn't a const method, so I suspect it is a compiler bug.
In order to move on, I slap on a harmless cast which will make this
particular compiler happy, and which should have no effects elsewhere,
but put it in a #if..#else..#endif macro to avoid warnings on others;
hopefully this also makes it easier to spot and remove in the future.
In the Wells struct, production rate control targets must be negative
(and injection rate control targets are always positive).
In the WellsGroup classes, there are separate variables for injection
and production, and all rates are positive. Therefore, upon adding or
modification of a production rate control, the negated value must
be used.
