Update Main branch with innovations from the Develop branch #627
Conversation
…1205 Update develop from main 2024/12/05
…ts (#617) **This PR affects ccpp-prebuild only. It can be merged into develop (or main), but it must come to main as soon as possible for use in UFS/SCM.** This PR adds workarounds for handling optional arguments the right way (finally!) in `scripts/ccpp_prebuild.py` and `scripts/mkcap.py`. This update is already in use in NEPTUNE and is required for @dustinswales' work to update/revert the optional arguments in ccpp-physics in the UFS and the SCM. The workaround for `ccpp-prebuild` allows us to treat only those arguments as optional that are truly optional for a CCPP scheme. In the past, any argument that was conditionally allocated by any of the host models had to be declared as optional, even if it was required by the physics. User interface changes?: Yes and No. This can be merged without making any changes (it won't break the previous functionality where any conditionally allocated variable had to be declared as optional in the physics). But it will allow to declare many CCPP physics variables as non-optional if they aren't really optional. This finally resolves #566 (by making ccpp-prebuild behave the same as capgen, which is the correct way to handle optional arguments). Testing: test removed: none unit tests: all pass system tests: all pass manual testing: implemented and tested thoroughly in NEPTUNE
Added test using a DDT host object to pass information Fix problems so that test passes Improve formatting for readability User interface changes?: No Fixes: #589 Testing: test removed: None unit tests: Pass system tests: Pass, added DDT host object test manual testing: Ran doctests, examined generated code for system tests --------- Co-authored-by: Steve Goldhaber <stevenng@met.no> Co-authored-by: Dom Heinzeller <dom.heinzeller@icloud.com>
PR to address issue with variable intents *across* groups. **Description** - Current behavior for variables across groups: the intent for the first group is used as the "truth". - If variable "foo" is intent "out" in Group A and intent "in" in Group B, "foo" will be added to the variable dictionary used by the host as intent "out", which then the host assumes means that the framework will handle it - Updated behavior for variables across groups: adjust the intent of the existing variable to "inout" if a conflict arises across groups (or suites) User interface changes?: No Testing: test removed: N/A unit tests: Updated capgen & ddt test - variable intents across suites also affected; PASS system tests: all PASS manual testing: Ran in CAM-SIMA
Fixes a bug where a ddt used in only one phase (thereby not promoted to the group level) does not get the necessary "use" statement added at the subroutine level in the suite cap.
dustinswales
requested review from
climbfuji,
gold2718,
mwaxmonsky,
peverwhee,
grantfirl and
mkavulich
as code owners
|
Time to test I suppose! |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
NEPTUNE tests passed. Please make sure to restore the develop branch if it gets deleted as part of the merge. Normally, we would create a branch starting from main, pulling in develop, and then create a PR (rather than going straight from develop to main) to avoid this.
@climbfuji Good point. Will do. |
… bugfix/scheme_ordering_in_caps
Capgen in SCM: Bug fix for scheme ordering in non-run phases
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@dustinswales Another reason that we need to open PRs as a dedicated branch is because develop is not fixed. Now that #629 has been merged the tests will need to be re-run (or the PR moved to a new branch based on the previously tested hash).
If this PR is replaced by one with hash 3d4e455 (which is what Courtney and I tested), then we only need UFS testing/approval and no retesting for SIMA and NEPTUNE. |
|
Sorrt for the confusion. Closing this in favor of #638 |
|
For future reference, you can change the source branch of a PR by clicking the "edit" box next to the title, no need to close and re-open. |
|
@mkavulich Unfortunately, you can only edit the PR target, not the branch where the PR originates from. |
|
Ah you're right, I thought it could be both. |
Update Main branch with innovations from the Develop branch
Details documented within the PRs into the develop branch.
Tested in UFS and all regression tests pass.
User interface changes?: No
Fixes: N/A
Testing:
test removed:
unit tests:
system tests:
manual testing: