Version 11 (modified by clevy, 22 months ago) (diff)


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.

  1. Summary
  2. Abstract
  3. Implementation
  4. Reference manual and web pages updates
  5. Preview
  6. Tests
  7. Review


Action VALID-12_CLEVY_CoupledInterface
PI(S) C. Levy


Validation of NEMO coupled interface, using OASIS in the trunk (as future 4.0 release)

Expected for
Ticket #2147
Branch NEMO/branches/$YEAR/dev_r{REV}_{ACTION_NAME}
Previewer(s) S. Masson, R. Hill, E. Maisonnave
Reviewer(s) S. Masson, R. Hill, E. Maisonnave

'.' => '/nemo/wiki/2018WP/VALID-12_CLEVY_CoupledInterface'


The NEMO OASIS interface is important for all coupled configurations. Testing that this section (mainly the coupling activated) is functional must be done before the 4.0 announcement.


To check if the coupling interfaces are functional, three steps/tests will be set up:

STEP1: Validation of the SAS reference configuration


Set up a test using NEMO (starting from the global reference configuration) with key_coupled, OASIS active and a toy atmospheric model

STEP3: Using this configuration, check that the coupled interface is functional for ocean dynamics, sea ice and biogeochemistry

Detailed list of new variables (including namelists) to be defined. Give for each the chosen name (following coding rules) and definition.
As a result of the tests, a few things needs to be updated/fixed:

  • sbccpl.F90
  • namelist_ref

A new test case has been build with a toy for the atmosphere and is now a test case to be added in the list of available test cases, see below

Reference manual and web pages updates

Not done yet


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 the request to the previewer(s).
Then an iterative process should take place between PI and previewer(s) in order to find a consensus

Possible bottlenecks:

  • the methodology
  • the flowchart and list of routines to be changed
  • the new list of variables wrt coding rules
  • the summary of updates in literature

Once an agreement has been reached, preview is ended and the PI can start the development into his branch.


Once the development is done, the PI should complete the tests section below and after ask the reviewers to start their review.

This part should contain the detailed results of SETTE tests (restartability and reproducibility for each of the reference configuration) and detailed results of restartability and reproducibility when the option is activated on specified configurations used for this test

Regular checks:

  • Can this change be shown to produce expected impact (option activated)?
  • Can this change be shown to have a null impact (option not activated)?
  • 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 impact as expected 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?


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


  • 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 development documented with sufficient details for others to understand the impact of the change?
  • Is the project literature (manual, guide, web, …) now updated or completed following the proposed summary in preview section?


Is the review fully successful? If not, please indicate what is still missing

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

Attachments (1)

Download all attachments as: .zip