-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 109
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
Facilitate using NEXTSTEP without --enable-tuning #3944
Conversation
jenkins build this opm-simulators=5215 please |
1 similar comment
jenkins build this opm-simulators=5215 please |
@vkip I think the changed files might have been moved. Please rebase this PR onto current master to remove the conflicts. |
d46a237
to
1f3895a
Compare
jenkins build this opm-simulators=5215 please |
double ScheduleState::max_next_tstep() const { | ||
double tuning_value = this->m_tuning.TSINIT.has_value() ? this->m_tuning.TSINIT.value() : -1.0; | ||
double ScheduleState::max_next_tstep(const bool enableTUNING) const { | ||
double tuning_value = (enableTUNING && this->m_tuning.TSINIT.has_value()) ? this->m_tuning.TSINIT.value() : -1.0; | ||
double next_value = this->next_tstep.has_value() ? this->next_tstep->value() : -1.0; | ||
return std::max(next_value, tuning_value); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@vkip I know this was not part of the PR, but maybe you have an opinion on this. Should this rather be std:min
instead?
Taking the maximum here at least explains why we sometimes did not see an effect of NEXTSTEP (if it was smaller than an initial TSINIT)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Good point, std::min makes more sense I think.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Done in #3954
No description provided.