Skip to content
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

Should nash_storage_subsurface & nash_storage_surface be a 1d arrays of doubles? #124

Closed
aaraney opened this issue Aug 13, 2024 · 4 comments · Fixed by #129
Closed

Should nash_storage_subsurface & nash_storage_surface be a 1d arrays of doubles? #124

aaraney opened this issue Aug 13, 2024 · 4 comments · Fixed by #129

Comments

@aaraney
Copy link
Member

aaraney commented Aug 13, 2024

In the docs nash_storage_subsurface is listed as a double type, but in the parsing code, it looks like this should be a 1d array. @ajkhattak can you clarify this?

cfe/src/bmi_cfe.c

Line 1265 in 14f334a

if (is_nash_storage_subsurface_string_val_set == TRUE) {

| nash_storage_subsurface | *double* | | | parameter_adjustable | | Nash Config param - secondary reservoir |

@aaraney
Copy link
Member Author

aaraney commented Aug 13, 2024

Looks like nash_storage_surface has the same issue.

@aaraney aaraney changed the title Should nash_storage_subsurface be a 1d array of double? Should nash_storage_subsurface& nash_storage_surface be a 1d arrays of doubles? Aug 13, 2024
@aaraney aaraney changed the title Should nash_storage_subsurface& nash_storage_surface be a 1d arrays of doubles? Should nash_storage_subsurface & nash_storage_surface be a 1d arrays of doubles? Aug 13, 2024
@ajkhattak
Copy link
Contributor

@aaraney you are right, they both should be 1D arrays, docs need to be updated...

@aaraney
Copy link
Member Author

aaraney commented Aug 14, 2024

@ajkhattak, nash_storage_subsurface is optional too, right?

@ajkhattak
Copy link
Contributor

@ajkhattak, nash_storage_subsurface is optional too, right?

that is correct. I will get this issue fixed today.

ajkhattak added a commit that referenced this issue Aug 29, 2024
fixes issue #124
ajkhattak added a commit that referenced this issue Aug 30, 2024
fixes issue #124
@ajkhattak ajkhattak mentioned this issue Sep 3, 2024
7 tasks
ajkhattak added a commit that referenced this issue Sep 4, 2024
fixes issue #124
ajkhattak added a commit that referenced this issue Sep 4, 2024
fixes issue #124
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants