Form page for development work

Help

A wiki page associated with a give action should be created in wiki/${YEAR}WP/${WORKING_GROUP|INSTITUTE}-${ACTION_NUMBER}_${PI} using this template.
For the creation of the page of the editing of the template itself (Trac links for !ticket & source), it is mandatory to visualize it in 'textarea' view and not in 'wysiwyg' view as it will alter the interpretation of the Trac processors #!th ... or #!td ... in the complex tables.
To avoid it and keep a preview, you can enable the side-by-side edition (tick box at top right of the editing frame). It will part your screen with the editing view on the left and the automatic preview on the right to control your changes. If you get by default the 'wysiwyg' view, this is due to your last editing work and can be changed in a simple manner.

Apart form this, each editor complete its section inside the form fields and save its modifications by clicking on the 'Save' button at the end of the section, the date and the author of the last edition will be updated above it.
There is absolutely no risk to make any operation on the wiki page itself and especially delete last version or submit a new one. The content of the form fields are recorded and singled out by the URL of the wiki page, the form context ('Abstract'/'Preview'/'Tests'/'Review') and subcontext (fields name).
From that, you can customize it while editing within the TracForm container {{{#!TracForm ... }}}. If necessary, you can copy the entire form (add a number _[0-9] to wiki page name) or the respective area in order to match the number of the (P)Reviewer(s). The best solution is not to extend significantly the length of the page.

This is the color code for the fulfilment of this form:

PI(S)

Previewer(s)

Reviewer(s)


The PI is responsible to closely follow the progress of the action, and especially to contact NEMO project manager if the delay on preview (or review) are longer than the 2 weeks expected.

Abstract

This section should be completed before starting to develop the code, in order to find agreement on the method beforehand.

Details

Action

PI(S)

Ticket

#1718

Branch

branches/$YEAR/dev_r${FORK_REVISION}_${WORKING_GROUP|INSTITUTE}${ACTION_NUMBER}_${PURPOSE}

Previewer(s)

Reviewer(s)

To enabling the !ticket and the source links related to your action, edit the form like a ordinary wiki page to hardcode them inside the table

Description

Implementation

Reference manual and web pages updates

Updated on 04/27/2016 17:56:03 by mathiot

Once the PI has completed this section, he should send a mail to the previewer(s) asking them to preview the work within two weeks.

Preview

Since the preview step must be completed before the PI starts the coding, the previewer(s) answers are expected to be completed within the two weeks after the PI has sent his request.
For each question, an iterative process should take place between PI and previewer(s) in order to reach a "YES" answer for each of the following questions.

Questions Answer Comment
Does the previewer agree with the proposed methodology?
Does the previewer agree with the proposed flowchart and list of routines to be changed?
Does the previewer agree with the proposed new list of variables, including agreement with coding rules?
Does the previewer agree with the proposed summary of updates in reference manual?
… … …

Updated on 08/14/2020 20:02:57 by anonymous

Once all "YES" have been reached, the PI can start the development into his development branch.

Tests

Once the development is done, the PI should complete this section below and ask the reviewers to start their review in the lower section.

Questions Answer Comment
Can this change be shown to produce expected impact? (if option activated)?
Can this change be shown to have a null impact? (if option not activated)
Detailed results of restartability and reproducibility when the option is activated. Please indicate the configuration used for this test
Detailed results of SETTE tests (restartability and reproducibility for each of the reference configuration)
Results of the required bit comparability tests been run: Are there no differences when activating the development?
If some differences appear, is reason for the change valid/understood?
If some differences appear, is the !ticket describing in detail the impact this change will have on model configurations?
Is this change expected to preserve all diagnostics?
If no, is reason for the change valid/understood?
Are there significant changes in run time/memory?
… … …

Updated on 08/14/2020 20:02:57 by anonymous

Review

A successful review is needed to schedule the merge of this development into the future NEMO release during next Merge Party (usually in November).

Code changes and documentation

Question Answer Comment
Is the proposed methodology now implemented?
Are the code changes in agreement with the flowchart defined at Preview step?
Are the code changes in agreement with list of routines and variables as proposed at Preview step?
If not, are the discrepancies acceptable?
Is the in-line documentation accurate and sufficient?
Do the code changes comply with NEMO coding standards?
Is the !ticket of development documented with sufficient details for others to understand the impact of the change?
Are the reference manual tex files now updated following the proposed summary in preview section?
Is there a need for some documentation on the web pages (in addition to in-line and reference manual)?
If yes, please describe and ask PI. A yes answer must include all documentation available.
… … …

Review Summary
Is the review fully successful?

Updated on 08/14/2020 20:02:57 by anonymous

Once review is successful, the development must be scheduled for merge during next Merge Party Meeting.

Last modified 4 years ago Last modified on 2016-04-25T15:22:03+02:00