2016WP CMCC_ROBUST-5_Lovato

The NEMO Officer creates a wiki page using this template for each action of the yearly workplan that his institute is in charge. The pattern for the page name in order to place it in the workplan tree is wiki/${YEAR}WP/${WORKING_GROUP|INSTITUTE}-${ACTION_NUMBER}_${PIS}.

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.


The action has to be detailed briefly in the 'Summary' sub-page (ordinary wiki page) for later inclusion in the 'Shared Actions' page or the institute page. Out of this, the rest of the page can be edited on-line inside the form fields considering the following color code:


Summary Abstract Tests





Record your modifications for the section you have edited by clicking on the corresponding button at the end of the section (). Just above, the timestamp of the record will be updated.

Apart from the case of 'Summary' section (inclusion of sub-page), the informations inside the form fields and this wiki page itself are stored in 2 separate databases. As a consequence, there is absolutely no risk to make any modification in the page itself as long as you don't change the page name or the content of {{{TracForm ... }}} processors.
If you edit it in a classical way, use textearea instead of wysiwyg view because it doesn't handle well the Trac processors {{{#!th ... }}} or {{{#!td ... }}}. To keep a preview, you can tick the box edit side-by-side at top right of the editing frame. Your default view depends on your last editing work so can be changed in a simple manner.


Link for editing the summary:CMCC_2016?action=edit&section=9

Wiki page "2016WP/ROBUST-5_CMCC/Summary" does not exist


Generalise the structure of BDY schemes used by OPA and TOP and create revise the generalized BC routines for TOP (trcbc.f90)



Reference manual and web pages updates

Updated on 11/07/2016 12:00:18 by lovato

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.


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 11/16/2016 17:45:46 by lovato

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


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 11/15/2016 16:36:59 by lovato


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 11/17/2016 15:18:10 by davestorkey

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

Last modified 3 years ago Last modified on 2017-10-31T19:42:32+01:00