More flexibility needed in SFR:iseg <-> MODSIM:link mapping

[emorway-usgs]

This part of the MODSIM custom code needs some flexibility in the case where we don't want to have convergence checked on certain segments (i.e., segments with no GW-SW interactions because streambed conductance is set to 0):

foreach (DataRow m_Row in m_SyncTblSEG.Rows)// i = 0; i < MF_Acc_Dep.Length; i++)
{
    //MF_Acc_Dep_Identifier[i] = (double) m_Row["iseg"];
    if (i != (int)((double)m_Row["iseg"] - 1)) throw new Exception("Iseg doesn't match the index of the array");
    MS_Flows[i] = 0;
    IDivert[i] = (int) (double) m_Row["Diversion"];
    IRelease[i] = (int)(double)m_Row["ResRelease"];
    m_Link = myModel.FindLink((string)m_Row["Link Name"]); // Use .FindLink() instead
    MS_Links[i] = m_Link;
    i += 1;
}

Perhaps we can schedule an online mini-sprint to address this, though without the use of webex this might be more difficult than in the past.

[emorway-usgs]

Attaching a file to this issue for use with Wes's Carson Valley MODSIM-MODFLOW model. By plugging the contents of this file into the .mdb file containing the mapping information (specifically the table "MS-GSF_mapping_info") it would be a good demonstration of the need to support flexibility in the mapping between MODSIM and SFR segments. That is, we may not want to include every iseg in the map, some isegs in MODFLOW may not be represented in MODSIM, or there may be reasons to have links in MODSIM that don't have a corresponding iseg's in SFR.

CV-wes-0deg.txt