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

CCPP run _init and _final for schemes #70

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
May 31, 2018

Conversation

climbfuji
Copy link
Collaborator

This PR separates out the changes to ccpp-framework in PR #69 that enable running the XXX_init and XXX_finalize routines automatically for every scheme listed in the SDF.

In addition, a suite-specific scheme YYY can be used, for which the YYY_init and YYY_finalize routines can be run explicitly before (init) and after (finalize) the scheme init and finalize routines are run:

...
<init>YYY</init>
<group ...>
   ...
   <scheme>XXX</scheme>
   ...
</group>
<finalize>YYY</finalize>
...

The above snippet will run:

  • during init: YYY_init, XXX_init
  • during the time integration: XXX_run
  • during finalize: XXX_finalize, YYY_finalize

This PR was tested to work and is ready to review and merge.

…_physics_init after an optional/additional init routine XXX specified as <init>XXX</init> in the SDF. For XXX, only the XXX_init function is used, unless XXX is also specified as additional finalize routine.

Similarly, all scheme _finalize routines are run as part of ccpp_physics_finalize, before an optional/additional finalize routine YYY specified as <finalize>YYY</finalize> in the SDF. For YYY, only the YYY_finalize function is used, unless YYY=XXX (in which case both XXX_init and XXX_finalize are used).

merge with 9f2e0f7
…s _init, _run and _finalize to the scheme names to determine the function names
@climbfuji
Copy link
Collaborator Author

This PR goes together with NCAR/ccpp-physics#86 and must go in before any further development can be made from my side with respect to CCPP in NEMSfv3gfs (i.e. CCPP-compliant cnvc90.f).

@climbfuji climbfuji requested a review from ligiabernardet May 30, 2018 22:12
Copy link
Collaborator

@grantfirl grantfirl left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This code looks good to me, although I would benefit from a brief overview of the changes if we meet tomorrow. As Dom mentioned in PR #71, the new SDF introduced therein will need to be modified to follow what this PR requires.

@grantfirl grantfirl mentioned this pull request May 30, 2018
@climbfuji
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Thanks @grantfirl I agree with your suggested approach.

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 this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants