Replace <GEO_ID> in summary config input file name

[DanSava]

Issue Resolves https://github.com/equinor/everest/issues/2252

Approach When reading the summary config file if the file name contains <GEO_ID> and the runpath also contains a geo_realization folder replace <GEO_ID> with the geo_realization folder number

(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 tests pass locally (after every commit!)

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

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark:

Project coverage is 85.19%. Comparing base (dbafb2c) to head (d98c1f8). Report is 3 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #7626      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   84.47%   85.19%   +0.71%     
==========================================
  Files         383      383              
  Lines       23285    23288       +3     
  Branches      876      893      +17     
==========================================
+ Hits        19670    19840     +170     
+ Misses       3501     3341     -160     
+ Partials      114      107       -7     

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[DanSava]

This change looks reasonable to me, but I would like a second opinion by @oyvindeide as this touches on some internalisation. Also, do we need to backport this?

It is not a critical bug in everest, more like a nice to have than anything else. So I would say it does not need a backport, it can wait to hit users in the next release

[DanSava]

Discussed with @oyvindeide and decided to postpone this feature until we start on Everest refactoring and ert integration.