Version 79 (modified by nemo, 19 months ago) (diff)

NEMO Development process

Last edition: 10/25/19 11:59:08 by nemo

  1. Summary
  2. Preview
  3. Tests
  4. Review

Action ${ACTION_NAME} Subject
PI(S) Names
Digest Brief description with motivations and main tasks
Dependencies If any
Branch source:/NEMO/branches/$YEAR/dev_r${REV}_${ACTION_NAME}
Previewer(s) Names
Reviewer(s) Names
Wiki wiki:!${YEAR}WP/!${ACTION_NAME?}…


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.


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


  1. Describe flow chart of the changes in the code
  2. List the .F90 files and modules to be changed
  3. Detailed list of new variables to be defined (including namelists), give for each the chosen name and description wrt coding rules.

Documentation updates

Using part 1 and 2, define the summary of changes to be done in the NEMO literature (manuals, guide, web pages, …).

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.


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).
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.

Question Discussion Answer
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, preview is ended and the PI can start the development into his development branch.


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?


Once the development is done, the PI should complete the tests section below and ask the reviewers to start their review.
A successful review is needed to schedule the merge of this development into the future NEMO release during next Merge Party (usually in November).

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?
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 !ticket of development documented with sufficient details for others to understand the impact of the change?
Are the reference manual tex files now updated following the proposed summary in preview section?
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.


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

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