Opened 5 years ago
Closed 4 years ago
#95 closed defect (fixed)
Alternate, sensible, convention for lonvalue_1d when data_dim=1, for a rectilinear domain
Reported by: | ssenesi | Owned by: | ymipsl |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | major | Component: | XIOS |
Version: | 2.0 | Keywords: | lonvalue, latvalue, rectilinear, domain |
Cc: |
Description
In domain.cpp, for the case of a rectilinear domain, completeLonLatClient uses lonvalue_1D with an implicit assumption that the distribution also is recti-linear (i.e. that each MPI tasks does process a rectangle in the lat-lon space)
This does not apply when data_dim=1 and the distribution follows another scheme.
The attached version of domain.cpp, domain_new.cpp, is a proposal for an alternate convention in that case : lonvalue_1d and latvalue_1d are then interpreted as providing arrays which are parallel to the data arrays (which is more intuitive in that data_dim=1 case)
Attachments (2)
Change History (8)
Changed 5 years ago by ssenesi
comment:1 Changed 5 years ago by ssenesi
Is there any news about this issue ?
comment:2 Changed 5 years ago by ssenesi
I am still interested in a solution to this issue. I will be happy to clarify the issue if the text above is not clear enough
comment:3 Changed 5 years ago by mhnguyen
We can change the default behavior of completeLonLatClient to describe lon, lat more flexibly.
But just keep in mind that lon and lat are a part of local domain so their size in any case must be the size of the local domain.
Two cases will be checked in the function completeLonLatClient for rectilinear domain:
1) ni == lonvalue_1d.numElements() && nj == lonvalue_1d.numElement()
+ So classic rectilinear domain with rectangular distribution.
2) i_index.numElements() == lonvalue_1d.numElements() && j_index.numElements() == latvalue_1d.numElements()
+ In this case, lonvalue_1d and latvalue_1 must have same size which is equal to the size of i_index and j_index.
+ The value of lonvalue_1d and latvalue_1d correspond to the cell (or point) described by i_index and j_index
comment:4 follow-up: ↓ 5 Changed 5 years ago by ssenesi
That seems fine.
Said otherwise, case 2 is the case for data_dim=1, in which case all arrays (but data_i_index) have the same size (ni) : i_index, j_index, data_index, latvalue_1D, lonvalue_1d
This is even more strict than :
i_index.numElements() == lonvalue_1d.numElements() && j_index.numElements() == latvalue_1d.numElements()
S
comment:5 in reply to: ↑ 4 Changed 5 years ago by mhnguyen
Replying to ssenesi:
That seems fine.
Said otherwise, case 2 is the case for data_dim=1, in which case all arrays (but data_i_index) have the same size (ni) : i_index, j_index, data_index, latvalue_1D, lonvalue_1d
This is even more strict than :
i_index.numElements() == lonvalue_1d.numElements() && j_index.numElements() == latvalue_1d.numElements()S
Yes, I agree it seems to be more strict.
But I prefer separating all distribution-related attributes of local domain from data description on this domain to mixing them up in a same function.
comment:6 Changed 4 years ago by mhnguyen
- Keywords lonvalue latvalue rectilinear domain added
- Resolution set to fixed
- Status changed from new to closed
Modified,proposed, domain.cpp