Version 4 (modified by rblod, 4 months ago) (diff)

Name and subject of the action

Last edition: 06/04/20 10:53:10 by rblod

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. Preview
  3. Tests
  4. Review


Action AGRIF-05_rblod_CMEMS
PI(S) Rachid Benshila
Digest Import developments from CMEMS AGRIF project
Dependencies #2222
Branch source:/NEMO/branches/{YEAR}/dev_r{REV}_{ACTION_NAME}
Previewer(s) J. Chanut
Reviewer(s) Names
Ticket #2129


This corresponds to the code produced during CMEMS AGRIF project (which ends in late 2020).
Expected outcomes. They correspond to a CMEMS call to improve Agrif capabilities for global configurations. Details will be found in corresponding project reports.

  • New nesting tools base on domaincfg :

the idea there is to modify domaincfg package to use it as nesting tools. The routines will be "Agrifed", and when compiled with key_agrif, the code will read an Agrif Fixed Grid?.in file and use Agrif Library to go through the grid hierarchy and interpolate the meshes. Bathymetry interpolation when an external database is provided will use the same interpolations than in the former nesting tools. When not provided, interpolating the parent bathymetry is possible. Yhe bathymetry connection is also handled recursively. Creating grid and bathymetry is the only functionality which is provided. The new nesting tools support the additional capabilities below.

  • Allow zooms with cyclic and North Fold conditions
    • make a zoom at north fold
    • make a zoom through the east-west grid separation
    • make an east-west zoom totally periodic
  • Improve parallelisation and load balancing (phase II)
  • Those three items imply to provide a new AGRIF library


Describe flow chart of the changes in the code.
List the Fortran modules and subroutines to be created/edited/deleted.
Detailed list of new variables to be defined (including namelists),
give for each the chosen name and description wrt coding rules.

Documentation updates

Using previous parts, define the main changes to be done in the NEMO literature (manuals, guide, web pages, …).


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.