Version 4 (modified by emanuelaclementi, 9 months ago) (diff)

Name and subject of the action

Last edition: 06/03/20 15:59:36 by emanuelaclementi

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 ASINTER-02_emanuelaclementi_Waves
PI(S) Emanuela Clementi
Digest New ocean-wave mixing compliant with bulks and OBL mixing
Dependencies #2155
Branch source:/NEMO/branches/{YEAR}/dev_r{REV}_{ACTION_NAME}
Previewer(s) Gurvan Madec
Reviewer(s) Names
Ticket #2339


This action is an activity of IMMERSE Task5.2 and focuses on the upgrade the ocean-wave coupling representation.

The final aim is to include an additional wave coupling development by mid 2020, which consists in modified
vertical mixing due to breaking waves: the energy flux explicitly evaluated by a wave model
(through the dissipation term in the wave energy balance equation) will be used as a new source of vertical mixing.

The first step is to include recent works on enhanced ocean mixing due to breaking waves (Couvelard et al., 2019)
and outcomes from WAVE2NEMO CMEMS service evolution project.

In addition, new wave developments detailed in Ticket #2155
should be revised to be compliant with bulks and OBL mixing in NEMO reference version.


A branch will be created gathering recent works on enhanced ocean mixing due to breaking waves.
The implementation then will be finalized (by mid 2020) by adding a new source term in the
vertical mixing as an energy flux explicitly evaluated by a wave model.

ZDF and SBC routines are impacted

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.