forced and only_group basically mean two opposite things. Having both of
them in the same context will be really confusing and error-prone.
And also, we do not do anything forcedly. We do things base on what
setup tells us to do.
Only_group may not be the final name, while deinitely a better one than
forced.
Current understanding. Two ways might prevent to return the guide_rate here
1. preventing the well from group control with keyword WGRUPCON
2. the well violating some limits and working under limits. We do not have strategy
to handle this situation yet.
Very hacky way here. The logic of the code is that only
a well is specified under GRUP control, it is under group
control. Which is not the case observed from the result.
From the result, if we specify group control with GCONPROD
and WCONPROD for a well, it looks like the well will be
under group control. TODO: make the logic correct here
instead of using `false` here.
Rename the the meaning for shut as whats used in Eclipse.
STOP: Well stopped off above the formation. I.e. allow for flow in the
well.
SHUT: Well completely isolated from the formation. The well is removed
from the well list.
for some of these files this is needed to make to keep it compiling
after the next patch because the new ErrorMacros.hpp file will no
longer implicitly includes <iostream>. for the remaining files it is
just good style.
While at it, the includes for most of these files have been ordered in
order of decreasing abstraction level.
our policy is that we only use boost if necessary, i.e., if the oldest
supported compiler does not support a given feature but boost
does. since we recently switched to GCC 4.4 or newer, std::shared_ptr
is available unconditionally.
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.
