Version 78 (modified by nemo, 19 months ago) (diff)

Reverted to version 11.

Last edited Timestamp?

NEMO Development process: preview and review page

Name and number of action as listed in workplan: To be completed here
PI of the development: To be completed here
Number and link to !ticket opened for this development: To be completed here
Previewer(s) name(s): To be completed here
Reviewer(s) name(s): To be completed here
Starting date for preview: To be completed here
Ending date of preview: To be completed here
Starting date of review: To be completed here
Ending date of review: To be completed here

Section 1: Detailed description to be completed by the PI

This 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.

Part 1: Detailed description

Describe the goal of development, and the methodology. Add reference documents or publications if relevant.

Part 2: Detailed implementation

2.1 Describe flow chart of the changes in the code.

2.2 List the F90 files and modules to be changed

2.3 Detailed list of new variables (including namelists) to be defined. Give for each the chosen name (following coding rules), and description

Part 3: Summary of updates to be done in the reference manual

Using part 1 and 2, define the summary of changes to be done in the NEMO reference manual (tex files):

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.


Section 2: Preview to be completed by the previewer(s)

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.
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 Discussion Answer
("YES" or "NO")
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?


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.


Section 3: Review to be completed by the reviewer(s)

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).

Test section (to be completed be PI)

Question Discussion Answer
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?

Code changes and documentation

Question Discussion Answer
Is the proposed methodology now implemented?
Are the code changes in agreement with the flowchart defined at Preview step? YES/NO
Are the code changes in agrement with list of routines and variables as proposed at Preview step?
If, not, are the discrepencies acceptable?
YES/NO
Is the in-line documentation accurate and sufficient? YES/NO
Do the code changes comply with NEMO coding standards? YES/NO
Is the !ticket of development documented with sufficient details for others to understand the impact of the change? YES/NO
Are the reference manual tex files now updated following the proposed summary in preview section? YES/NO
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.
YES/NO

Review Summary

  • Is the review fully sucessful?
  • If not, please indicate date and what is still missing?

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.