Changes between Version 78 and Version 79 of Developers/Dev Process


Ignore:
Timestamp:
2018-11-05T20:53:06+01:00 (19 months ago)
Author:
nemo
Comment:

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified
  • Developers/Dev Process

    v78 v79  
    1 Last edited [[Timestamp]] 
     1= NEMO Development process 
    22 
    3 [[PageOutline]] 
     3Last edition: '''[[Wikinfo(changed_ts)]]''' by '''[[Wikinfo(changed_by)]]''' 
    44 
    5 = NEMO Development process: preview and review page = 
    6 || '''Name and number of action as listed in workplan:''' || ''To be completed here'' || 
    7 || '''PI of the development:''' || ''To be completed here'' || 
    8 || '''Number and link to !ticket opened for this development:''' || ''To be completed here'' || 
    9 || '''Previewer(s) name(s):''' || ''To be completed here'' || 
    10 || '''Reviewer(s) name(s):''' || ''To be completed here'' || 
    11 || '''Starting date for preview:''' || ''To be completed here'' || 
    12 || '''Ending date of preview:''' || ''To be completed here'' || 
    13 || '''Starting date of review:''' || ''To be completed here'' || 
    14 || '''Ending date of review:''' || ''To be completed here'' || 
     5[[PageOutline(2, , inline)]] 
    156 
    16 ---- 
    17 == Section 1: Detailed description to be completed by the PI == 
     7||=Action       || ''${ACTION_NAME} Subject''                             || 
     8||=PI(S)        || ''Names''                                              || 
     9||=Digest       || ''Brief description with motivations and main tasks''  || 
     10||=Dependencies || ''If any''                                             || 
     11||=Branch       || source:/NEMO/branches/$YEAR/dev_r${REV}_${ACTION_NAME} || 
     12||=Previewer(s) || ''Names''                                              || 
     13||=Reviewer(s)  || ''Names''                                              || 
     14||=Wiki         || wiki:!${YEAR}WP/!${ACTION_NAME}...                     || 
     15 
     16== Summary 
     17 
    1818This section should be completed by the PI of the development, before starting to develop the code, in order to find agreement on the method and the implementation beforehand. 
    1919 
    20 === Part 1: Detailed description === 
    21 Describe the goal of development, and the methodology. Add reference documents or publications if relevant. 
     20=== Description 
    2221 
    23 === Part 2: Detailed implementation === 
    24 ==== 2.1 Describe flow chart of the changes in the code. ==== 
    25 ==== 2.2 List the F90 files and modules to be changed ==== 
    26 ==== 2.3 Detailed list of new variables (including namelists) to be defined. Give for each the chosen name (following coding rules), and description ==== 
    27 === Part 3: Summary of updates to be done in the reference manual === 
    28 Using part 1 and 2, define the summary of changes to be done in the NEMO reference manual (tex files): 
     22Describe the goal of development, and the methodology. \\ 
     23Add reference documents or publications if relevant. 
    2924 
    30 '''END of PI's section: 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, and add the date in the Starting date of Preview line of table above.''' 
     25=== Implementation 
    3126 
    32 ---- 
    33 == Section 2: Preview to be completed by the previewer(s) == 
    34 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), see start and end dates of preview above.[[BR]]'''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.''' 
     271. Describe flow chart of the changes in the code 
     282. List the `.F90` files and modules to be changed 
     293. Detailed list of new variables to be defined (including namelists), give for each the chosen name and description wrt coding rules. 
    3530 
    36 || Questions || Discussion || Answer [[BR]]("YES" or "NO") || 
    37 || '''Does the previewer agree with the proposed methodology?''' || || || 
    38 || '''Does the previewer agree with the proposed flowchart and list of routines to be changed?''' || || || 
    39 || '''Does the previewer agree with the proposed new list of variables, including agreement with coding rules?''' || || || 
    40 || '''Does the previewer agree with the proposed summary of updates in reference manual?''' || || || 
     31=== Documentation updates 
    4132 
    42 [[BR]]Once all "YES" have been reached, Ending date of preview should be added in table above, and the PI can start the development into his development branch. 
     33Using part 1 and 2, define the summary of changes to be done in the NEMO literature (manuals, guide, web pages, ...). 
    4334 
    44 ---- 
    45 == Section 3: Review to be completed by the reviewer(s) == 
    46 Once the development is done, the PI should complete the tests section below and ask the reviewers to start their review, and add the date in the table above. A sucessful review is needed to schedule the merge of this development into the future NEMO release during next Merge Party (usually in November). 
     35Once the PI has completed this section, he should send a mail to the previewer(s), asking them to preview the work within two weeks. 
    4736 
    48 === Test section (to be completed be PI) === 
    49 || Question || Discussion || Answer || 
    50 || Can this change be shown to produce expected impact? (if option activated)? || || || 
    51 || Can this change be shown to have a null impact? (if option not activated) || || || 
    52 || Detailed results of restartability and reproducibility when the option is activated. Please indicate the configuration used for this test || || || 
    53 || Detailed results of SETTE tests (restartability and reproducibility for each of the reference configuration) || || || 
    54 || Results of the required bit comparability tests been run: Are there no differences when activating the development? || || || 
    55 || If some differences appear, is reason for the change valid/understood? || || || 
    56 || If some differences appear, is the !ticket describing in detail the impact this change will have on model configurations? || || || 
    57 || Is this change expected to preserve all diagnostics? || || || 
    58 || If no, is reason for the change valid/understood? || || || 
    59 || Are there significant changes in run time/memory? || || || 
     37== Preview #preview 
    6038 
    61 === Code changes and documentation === 
    62 || Question || Discussion || Answer || 
    63 || Is the proposed methodology now implemented? || || || 
    64 || Are the code changes in agreement with the flowchart defined at Preview step? || || YES/NO || 
    65 || Are the code changes in agrement with list of routines and variables as proposed at Preview step?[[BR]]If, not, are the discrepencies acceptable? || || YES/NO || 
    66 || Is the in-line documentation accurate and sufficient? || || YES/NO || 
    67 || Do the code changes comply with NEMO coding standards? || || YES/NO || 
    68 || Is the !ticket of development documented with sufficient details for others to understand the impact of the change? || || YES/NO || 
    69 || Are the reference manual tex files now updated following the proposed summary in preview section? || || YES/NO || 
    70 || Is there a need for some documentation on the web pages (in addition to in-line and reference manual)?[[BR]]If yes, please describe and ask PI. A yes answer must include all documentation available. || || YES/NO || 
     39Since 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). \\ 
     40For 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. 
    7141 
    72 === Review Summary === 
    73  * '''Is the review fully sucessful?''' 
     42||= Question                                                                                                      ||= Discussion ||= Answer \\('YES'|'NO'|'NA') || 
     43|| '''Does the previewer agree with the proposed methodology?'''                                                  ||             ||                             || 
     44|| '''Does the previewer agree with the proposed flowchart and list of routines to be changed?'''                 ||             ||                             || 
     45|| '''Does the previewer agree with the proposed new list of variables, including agreement with coding rules?''' ||             ||                             || 
     46|| '''Does the previewer agree with the proposed summary of updates in reference manual?'''                       ||             ||                             || 
     47 
     48Once all 'YES' have been reached, preview is ended and the PI can start the development into his development branch. 
     49 
     50== Tests #tests 
     51 
     52||= Question                                                                                                                                 ||= Discussion ||= Answer \\('YES'|'NO'|'NA') || 
     53|| Can this change be shown to produce expected impact? (if option activated)?                                                               ||             ||                             || 
     54|| Can this change be shown to have a null impact? (if option not activated)                                                                 ||             ||                             || 
     55|| Detailed results of restartability and reproducibility when the option is activated. Please indicate the configuration used for this test ||             ||                             || 
     56|| Detailed results of SETTE tests (restartability and reproducibility for each of the reference configuration)                              ||             ||                             || 
     57|| Results of the required bit comparability tests been run: Are there no differences when activating the development?                       ||             ||                             || 
     58|| If some differences appear, is reason for the change valid/understood?                                                                    ||             ||                             || 
     59|| If some differences appear, is the !ticket describing in detail the impact this change will have on model configurations?                 ||             ||                             || 
     60|| Is this change expected to preserve all diagnostics?                                                                                      ||             ||                             || 
     61|| If no, is reason for the change valid/understood?                                                                                         ||             ||                             || 
     62|| Are there significant changes in run time/memory?                                                                                         ||             ||                             || 
     63 
     64== Review #review 
     65 
     66Once the development is done, the PI should complete the tests section below and ask the reviewers to start their review. \\ 
     67A successful review is needed to schedule the merge of this development into the future NEMO release during next Merge Party (usually in November). 
     68 
     69=== Code changes and documentation 
     70 
     71||= Question                                                                                                                                                                                           ||= Discussion ||= Answer \\('YES'|'NO'|'NA') || 
     72|| Is the proposed methodology now implemented?                                                                                                                                                        ||             ||                             || 
     73|| Are the code changes in agreement with the flowchart defined at Preview step?                                                                                                                       ||             ||                             || 
     74|| Are the code changes in agreement with list of routines and variables as proposed at Preview step? \\If, not, are the discrepancies acceptable?                                                     ||             ||                             || 
     75|| Is the in-line documentation accurate and sufficient?                                                                                                                                               ||             ||                             || 
     76|| Do the code changes comply with NEMO coding standards?                                                                                                                                              ||             ||                             || 
     77|| Is the !ticket of development documented with sufficient details for others to understand the impact of the change?                                                                                 ||             ||                             || 
     78|| Are the reference manual tex files now updated following the proposed summary in preview section?                                                                                                   ||             ||                             || 
     79|| 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. ||             ||                             || 
     80 
     81=== Finding 
     82 
     83 * '''Is the review fully successful?''' 
    7484 * '''If not, please indicate date and what is still missing?''' 
    7585 
    76 Once review is sucessful, the of end of review should be added in table at top of the page, and the development must be scheduled for merge during next Merge Party Meeting. 
     86Once review is successful, the development must be scheduled for merge during next Merge Party Meeting.