-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Simplify snapshot checking reporting and functionality #269
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
do we still want to include the check if ncdata_check is populated in order to proceed to the check? I see that there's logic in physics_check data to issue a warning ('WARNING: Namelist variable ncdata_check is UNSET. Model will run, but physics check data will not be printed') if it's not, but I can also imagine that warning would be confusing if you had no intention of running the check.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That's a good question! I guess my opinion would be to just skip the call to
physics_check_data
entirely if we can avoid it, so I would prefer to leave thisncdata_check
if-statement here as-is.That being said, I am also not sure if the extra internal logic inside of
physics_check_data
you mentioned is really hurting anything either (beyond maybe a few wasted clock cycles). So that combined with the fact that I am not totally sure what the long-term plan for thephysics_check_data
routine will be (e.g. will it eventually be called elsewhere in SIMA? Removed entirely?) makes me lean towards just leaving everything as-is on that front for now as well. Of course if you or @cacraigucar feel strongly one way or the other please let me know. Thanks!There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I like avoiding writing out the WARNING message for runs where we are not performing checks (normal CAM-SIMA runs in the future?) I figure when we get to that stage, we can make sure that everything is running "best" for CAM-SIMA and make any required tweeks at that time. So I don't have a strong feeling one way or the other.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Well, turns out I can't read. The
if (trim(ncdata_check) /= trim(unset_path_str)) then
is still there and I thought it was gone. So.. agreed and nevermind!