-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 29
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Error in flownet_save_iteration_analytics in CI/CD build #61
Comments
I get the same message for Egg model now. I noticed that
I'm not familiar with this parameter analysis . Anyhow, I added manually to the corresponding parameter for Egg model in the configurations file
This makes disappear the error message. Nevertheles, I have another problem and I'm not sure it is related to this error. The problem is that the omp models of the network, has not solution, they run but the solution is constant like there are flowrate or BHP conditions that are never impose. |
Thanks for the tip @tayloris. I did as suggested and now I'm getting:
Is that by any means the same thing as you got? |
I got another error related to a well status at that time. However, in your case, it may be that the "start" and "end" date are out of your simulation time. Or it can be that it doesn't find the parameter "quantity". For instance, all the producer in EGG model is named by PROD + a number so that's why I specified [WOPR:PROD] in my case. |
if "analysis" is not specified in the configuration file then flownet should not add any default value in " "analysis" and also it should not run an analysis workflow in ERT |
I tried specifying other options but I ended up with errors none the less. I also tried some try-except statements but I can't yet fool the workflow into just ignoring what it can't find (it just fails one step later).
I agree. 👍 |
Any ideas @edubarrosTNO ? |
I found two problems:
However, if I run the code now locally I'm getting different results for each time I run the same code on the exact same data:
I still need to identify where the random generator is located... 😆 |
@wouterjdb and @tayloris, I have just seen the history of messages here. Yes, I like the idea of not running the analysis workflow on ERT if no analysis parameters are provided. I will probably start with this one. regarding the random behavior, I have also observed that before. I looked a bit into it a few weeks ago, and I think this might be related to this part of the code that is reading observations from the observation yaml file (if I remember correctly, I got this bit of code from you @wouterjdb quite some time ago):
I think this is loading the measurement data into a structure that doesn't preserve order (causing random order). I thought that the remainder of the code was carefully handling this, but apparently it is not. I'll try to find out more about it and address this. |
Yes, a dict has an arbitrary order and looping over a dict is therefore not a good idea. The key-value pairs are however what they are, so you can use a dict as a look-up table. There is also a collection which is called OrderedDict, which does preserve order. |
|
Ah, good to know. Wasn't aware of that change. |
In a successful github workflow run one finds the following error in the logs:
The
DATE
key is missing in a pandas dataframe. Could this be a result of recent changes in the time shifting /resampling that were done?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: