Version 58 (modified by nemo, 19 months ago) (diff)

${ACTION_NAME} Subject

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.


Preview

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'|'NO'|'NA')
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.


Review

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 successful review is needed to schedule the merge of this development into the future NEMO release during next Merge Party (usually in November).

Test

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?
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.

Summary

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

Once review is successful, 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.