Remove ert config from batch sim

[frode-aarstad]

Issue
Resolves #9002

Approach
Short description of the approach

(Screenshot of new behavior in GUI if applicable)

• PR title captures the intent of the changes, and is fitting for release notes.
• Added appropriate release note label
• Commit history is consistent and clean, in line with the contribution guidelines.
• Make sure unit tests pass locally after every commit (git rebase -i main --exec 'pytest tests/ert/unit_tests -n logical -m "not integration_test"')

When applicable

• When there are user facing changes: Updated documentation
• New behavior or changes to existing untested code: Ensured that unit tests are added (See Ground Rules).
• Large PR: Prepare changes in small commits for more convenient review
• Bug fix: Add regression test for the bug
• Bug fix: Create Backport PR to latest release

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 98.27586% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 90.75%. Comparing base (7ee89c1) to head (6f3d835).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/ert/config/ert_config.py	98.24%	1 Missing ⚠️
src/ert/simulator/batch_simulator_context.py	96.15%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #9070      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   90.72%   90.75%   +0.03%     
==========================================
  Files         350      350              
  Lines       21800    21833      +33     
==========================================
+ Hits        19777    19814      +37     
+ Misses       2023     2019       -4     

Flag	Coverage Δ
cli-tests	39.09% <74.13%> (+0.07%)	⬆️
gui-tests	71.74% <70.68%> (+0.01%)	⬆️
performance-tests	49.29% <68.96%> (+0.04%)	⬆️
unit-tests	79.62% <97.41%> (+0.03%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[yngve-sk]

OK change, but purely cosmetic and unrelated to this PR? Could be in a separate commit

[yngve-sk]

Supposing nothing was changed here, just a move?

[frode-aarstad]

Yes

[yngve-sk]

HMM, I see the number of parameters passed from the ert config became bit large, a lot of it is from having to make create_run_path generic so it can be invoked from both places. And we do need to get the info from the ErtConfig somehow but the way it is currently structured is making this very verbose. It might be worth thinking a bit more about whether we need to use the same create_run_path from everest as from ERT, I'm not entirely sure..

I think this deserves some more discussion at least. Would it maybe be possible to make BatchSimulator depend more directly on things from the EverestConfig instead sub-configs of the ErtConfig?

[frode-aarstad]

HMM, I see the number of parameters passed from the ert config became bit large, a lot of it is from having to make create_run_path generic so it can be invoked from both places. And we do need to get the info from the ErtConfig somehow but the way it is currently structured is making this very verbose. It might be worth thinking a bit more about whether we need to use the same create_run_path from everest as from ERT, I'm not entirely sure..

I think this deserves some more discussion at least. Would it maybe be possible to make BatchSimulator depend more directly on things from the EverestConfig instead sub-configs of the ErtConfig?

I agree that some functions have become very verbose. In particular BatchSimulator and BatchContext. Perhaps its worth having a discussion how we can improve those two.

[yngve-sk]

👍