Comments, formatting

TPFA_ResSim/__init__.py

@@ -127,7 +127,7 @@ def _set_Q(self, k):
  for xy, q in zip(xys, rates):
  # Use += in case of superimposed wells (e.g. by optimzt)
  Q[self.xy2ind(*xy)] += sign * q
- assert np.isclose(Q.sum(), 0), "Inj - Prod does not sum to 0"
+ assert np.isclose(Q.sum(), 0), "(Inj - Prod) does not sum to 0"
  self._Q = Q
 
  # Pres() -- listing 5

TPFA_ResSim/grid.py

@@ -7,13 +7,13 @@
 The index ordering is "C-style" (numpy default).
 This choice means that `x` is the 1st coord., `y` is 2nd,
 and is hardcoded in the reservoir simulator model code
-in what takes place **between** `np.ravel` and `np.reshape`
-(both of which are configured to use row-major index ordering).
+(in what takes place **between** `np.ravel` and `np.reshape`,
+both of which are configured to use row-major index ordering.
+"F-style" (column-major) indexing implementation is perfectly possible,
+but would imply an undue amount hassle).
 Conveniently, it also means that `x` and `y` tend to occur in alphabetic order.
 Thus, in printing a matrix of a field, the `x` coordinate corresponds to the row index.
 By contrast, the plotting module depicts `x` from left to right, `y` from bottom to top.
-Implementing support for "F-style" (column-major) indexing is possible,
-but would imply an undue amount hassle.
 """
 
 from dataclasses import dataclass
@@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ def size(self):
 
  @property
  def domain(self):
- """`(0, 0, Lx, Ly)`"""
+ """`((0, 0), (Lx, Ly))`"""
  return ((0, 0), (self.Lx, self.Ly))
 
  @property

TPFA_ResSim/plotting.py

@@ -56,16 +56,14 @@ def plt_field(self, ax, Z, style="default", wells=True,
 
  `kwargs` falls back to `styles[style]`, which falls back to `styles['defaults']`.
  """
- # Set defaults
+ # Populate kwargs with fallback style
  kwargs = {**styles["default"], **styles[style], **kwargs}
  # Pop from kwargs. Remainder goes to countourf
  ax.set(**axprops(kwargs))
  cticks = kwargs.pop("cticks")
 
- # Plotting with extent=(0, Lx, 0, Ly), rather than merely changing ticks
- # has the advantage that set_aspect("equal") yields correct axes size,
- # and that mouse hovering (with interactive backends) reports correct pos.
- # Disadvantage: well_scatter must also account for coord_type.
+ # Why extent=(0, Lx, 0, Ly), rather than merely changing ticks?
+ # set_aspect("equal") and mouse hovering (reporting x,y).
  if "rel" in coord_type:
  Lx, Ly = 1, 1
  elif "abs" in coord_type:
@@ -75,8 +73,8 @@ def plt_field(self, ax, Z, style="default", wells=True,
  else:
  raise ValueError(f"Unsupported coord_type: {coord_type}")
 
- # Need to transpose coz self assumes shape (Nx, Ny),
- # and contour() uses the same orientation as array printing.
+ # Need to transpose coz orientation is model.shape==(Nx, Ny),
+ # while contour() displays the same orientation as array printing.
  Z = kwargs.pop("transf")(Z)
  Z = Z.reshape(self.shape).T
 
@@ -85,9 +83,11 @@ def plt_field(self, ax, Z, style="default", wells=True,
 
  # ax.imshow(Z[::-1])
  collections = ax.contourf(
- Z, **kwargs, extend="both" if has_out_of_range else "neither",
- origin="lower", extent=(0, Lx, 0, Ly),
- )
+ Z, **kwargs,
+ origin="lower",
+ extent=(0, Lx, 0, Ly),
+ extend="both" if has_out_of_range else "neither",
+ )
 
  # Contourf does not plot (at all) the bad regions. "Fake it" by facecolor
  if has_out_of_range: