Bring in MUSICA chemistry

[gold2718]

Add the MUSICA Chemistry as an external. The test for this functionality will be both a standalone terminator chemistry test and the CAM-SE Held-Suarez terminator chemistry test.

[K20shores]

@nusbaume does #225 close this?

[nusbaume]

I'm not super familiar with the state of the "MUSICA Chemistry" repo, so I'll let @mattldawson decide. However, if he has no strong opinions then I am happy with closing this issue.

[cacraigucar]

My two cents opinion.

I would say this issue would close when MICM/MUSICA is brought in via the Externals and has a scheme which utilizes it. Normal day-to-day running of MICM/MUSICA will be done outside the container (at least for now), so I suggest it needs to be implemented in this way before we close this issue.

Of course, I'm open to being overridden on this decision.

[nusbaume]

@cacraigucar I could be wrong, but my understanding is that MUSICA (or at least MICM) would be brought in as a separate library that is independently built on the machine, similar to ESMF or NetCDF. Thus I don't think we'll ever need to bring it in via manage_externals. Now we could wait and close this issue once we have a MICM config file for CAM-SIMA that actually runs some sort of chemical mechanism, but IMO that isn't really what this issue is requesting (I just interpret it as getting the MUSICA library successfully linked to CAM-SIMA).

Of course I am happy to be corrected by any of the ACOM SEs if I have that wrong here.

[mattldawson]

@cacraigucar @nusbaume I have no strong preference here. We've been trying to work on issues that are sprint-sized or smaller, but we don't have to inflict that everyone else. If this does include running an actual simulation with chemistry (which is more than sprint sized), what we have been doing is adding a checklist to the description for all the sub-tasks, which are then easy to turn into individual issues:

• step 1
• step 2
• step 3

Then, when all the PRs are merged in for the sub-tasks, we close the issue. If you would like to do this, maybe we can come up with the sub tasks during the next sprint planning meeting?

[cacraigucar]

@cacraigucar @nusbaume I have no strong preference here. We've been trying to work on issues that are sprint-sized or smaller, but we don't have to inflict that everyone else. If this does include running an actual simulation with chemistry (which is more than sprint sized), what we have been doing is adding a checklist to the description for all the sub-tasks, which are then easy to turn into individual issues:

• step 1
• step 2
• step 3

Then, when all the PRs are merged in for the sub-tasks, we close the issue. If you would like to do this, maybe we can come up with the sub tasks during the next sprint planning meeting?

If you would find this useful, feel free to pursue it. It is also okay to have a PR say "Partially addressed #XXX" and not have a specific issue for every PR when there are multiple commits.