-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 313
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
Update Externals.cfg to cesm2_3_beta17 and remove mct #2539
Update Externals.cfg to cesm2_3_beta17 and remove mct #2539
Conversation
Next I will go through the checklist in #2294 and rerun tests. |
Question: May I remove (or rename) this:
|
aux_clm
izumi FAIL
|
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
@slevis-lmwg the SETUP failure looks like an issue with the debug libraries missing for ESMF and pio for nvhpc/24.3. cannot be loaded as requested: "parallelio/2.6.2-debug", "esmf/8.6.0-debug"@jedwards4b should these libraries be available, or do we need to switch to the non-debug versions? |
@slevis-lmwg I am currently working on the parallelio-debug issue, hope to have a resolution soon. |
@slevis-lmwg although you can remove cpl7 you cannot yet remove mct. However I don't expect you to remove any externals in this tag, I will remove them in the next tag. |
Ok, thanks @jedwards4b |
@slevis-lmwg the issue (cannot be loaded as requested: "parallelio/2.6.2-debug", "esmf/8.6.0-debug") should now be fixed, please try again. |
@billsacks I'm guessing that I should push the change, but I wanted to make sure you didn't have any follow-up before I went ahead. And THANK YOU for helping with this! |
@slevis-lmwg and @billsacks the one thought I have on where this should go is if this is JUST in the LILACSMOKE test, someone running LILAC outside of testing will still see this problem. So maybe that load_env should be done in an appropriate place in cime? |
That's great news, @slevis-lmwg - thank you! It's a shame that the LILAC test is so fragile, due to not using the same runner code that other tests use, but for now, yes, I'd say go ahead and push that change and we'll call it good! |
@ekluzek this is a good point and something that occurred to me but which I honestly kind of buried my head in the sand about. My guess is that this problem only shows up in the LILAC testing because of the weird way it's set up. In a normal use of LILAC, we wouldn't be using CIME to run the model, but we use CIME for the LILACSMOKE test so that we can leverage its testing and batch submission infrastructure. So I think that, in normal user usage, they'll be loading the appropriate module environment on their own rather than relying on the CIME infrastructure to do it. My head has been out of this for long enough that I'm not confident of this, but my intuition leans enough in this direction that I personally feel okay with just putting in in the LILACSMOKE test for now and then waiting until we get a problem report that indicates that more work may be needed. |
Ahh, that sounds reasonable to me. I'm not sure how big the LILAC user base is. And you are right they wouldn't be doing this within cime (unless users are doing unexpected things which is always possible). Especially in the short term we should get the fix in for the testing so this tag can move forward. So thanks both for your thoughts as well as the work you did on this. Take care. |
derecho tests aux_clm on izumi OK |
I have great news: |
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 do ask for a couple little things, that shouldn't require testing to be redone. But, this looks great and ready to come in as I see.
@slevis-lmwg awesome thanks for getting this done. And in time for a long weekend, so you can free your mind of work. I sent a review approval in, but asked for a couple things that I don't think will require retesting. Although I do suggest running the ctsm_sci testlist, because we talked about doing that as a regular practice in a CTSM SE meeting a few weeks ago. |
@slevis-lmwg is your repository up to date with what you tested? If I run |
Also when I checkout upd_externals_to_beta17 (and update share to 1.0.19) and run test ERS_D_Ld15.f45_f45_mg37.I2000Clm50FatesRs.izumi_nag.clm-FatesColdTwoStream |
I think "share" was missed in the list of updates in #2493, so thank you for catching that @jedwards4b. I will rerun all testing and see what happens... |
derecho tests OK aux_clm on izumi |
@jedwards4b I don't see the update to the share library documented anywhere. Does that update need to be added to the testdb for cesm3_0_alpha01a? |
For the above test, I get this, so I think we're fine: HOWEVER, I am now getting the following failures on derecho:
I will try these again without the latest update to share, to confirm my pre-weekend results.
I have convinced myself now that the last two test failures are due to the compiler update. Last week I confused myself by forgetting to rerun ./manage_externals/checkout_externals when necessary. |
This is due to the compiler update. For case |
Thanks for working through this @jedwards4b and @slevis-lmwg . @briandobbins is this the same issue you brought up in our conversation, or is there another task for gitflexi-mod that needs to happen on the CTSM side? |
@wwieder: git-fleximod |
I got the letters in the right place, just not the dash. for me that's pretty good ;) |
Thank you @jedwards4b, sorry about my confusion regarding the compiler update. As soon as I finish rerunning the job that didn't build for me before, so that we can have correct baseline files for it, I will begin the process of merging this PR. |
I wanted to reiterate my thanks to @jedwards4b @billsacks @ekluzek for helping me with this PR, especially during the testing phase. |
Description of changes
Specifics listed in issues
#2493 upd. externals to beta17
#2294 remove mct, but not entirely, so I'm removing this issue from the "fixed" list
#2546 fix error in cam4/cam5 test (unrelated)
#2279 Retire the /test/tools framework for CESM test system custom tests that do the same thing
Specific notes
Contributors other than yourself, if any:
@ekluzek @jedwards4b @billsacks
CTSM Issues Fixed (include github issue #):
Fixes #2493
Fixes #2546
Fixes #2279
Are answers expected to change (and if so in what way)?
No
Any User Interface Changes (namelist or namelist defaults changes)?
Yes, and it was done.
Does this create a need to change or add documentation? Did you do so?
I don't think so.
Testing performed, if any:
To play safe, I will run the following tests:
PASS ./build-namelist_test.pl
PASS python tests -u and -s
PASS make black (make lint gives minor complaint but perfect score)
OK aux_clm on derecho (first time result; see subsequent results below)