Conversation
|
jenkins build this please |
1 similar comment
|
jenkins build this please |
bska
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I can't approve this. The changes to Summary.cpp don't serve a purpose as far as I can tell. Do just the minimum needed to make it compile and leave the rest alone.
|
jenkins build this please |
|
@joakim-hove That's not really any point right now; there's a test error that I'm in the process of fixing. |
|
jenkins build this please |
1 similar comment
|
jenkins build this please |
|
@joakim-hove I'm having an issue getting this to build in Jenkins; something about the build system, I think, but I'm not entirely sure what I could have done to upset it. 🙁 |
|
jenkins build this please |
|
@joakim-hove Looking into it, it seems as this will resolve itself once #1610 is resolved and I can rebase to the new head. |
|
please confirm #1616 takes care of it |
|
jenkins build this please |
a36e5ce to
3bd4769
Compare
|
jenkins build this please |
|
@bska: You had some - reasonable - comments to this PR; could you take a new look and see if it can be merged now? |
bska
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is much better. I just have a couple of more comments and then I think this will be ready for merging.
| const bool matched { std::regex_match(keyword, user_defined_regex) } ; | ||
| const bool blacklisted { udq_blacklist.find(keyword) != udq_blacklist.end() } ; | ||
|
|
||
| return matched && !blacklisted; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Did you consider writing this as
return !blacklisted && std::regex_match(keyword, user_defined_regex);? That way, you don't incur the cost of regular expression matching for blacklisted keywords.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure, in this case, if that's worth it, given the domain of the function and the relative simplicity of the regular expression.
|
One more thing. I didn't expect to see ENABLE_ECL_INPUT AND (NOT ENABLE_ECL_OUTPUT)but it still was surprising to me. Any suggestion on that aspect, @akva2? |
Thank you for getting back to this - we will fix the remaining points you raise. |
I was also surprised by that; I concluded it was correct but would be happy to be proven wrong. Time to revisit: #1129? |
|
jenkins build this please |
bska
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for the updates. This looks good to me now. I'll merge into master.
This feature implements
Opm::EclIO::SummaryNodeOpm::out::SummaryOpm::EclIO::SummaryNodeis a lighter and more focused value object stylestructthanOpm::SummaryConfigNode, suitable for use in the Summary reader and writer arenas.