Changes between Version 1 and Version 2 of ticket/0681/Review
- Timestamp:
- 2010-10-04T19:27:23+02:00 (14 years ago)
Legend:
- Unmodified
- Added
- Removed
- Modified
-
ticket/0681/Review
v1 v2 12 12 - integer in namelist should be nn_something, ex niaufn=nn_iaufn[[BR]] - real in namelist should be rn_something, ex saltfixmin = rn_saltfixmin[[BR]] - character name (here mainly filename) should be cn_something, enactfiles=cn_enactfiles[[BR]] 13 13 14 Presentation of the namelist changed since nemo_v3.1(?), it should be something like (see https://forge.ipsl.jussieu.fr/nemo/browser/trunk/CONFIG/ORCA2_LIM/EXP00/namelist)[[BR]]14 Presentation of the namelist changed since nemo_v3.1(?), it should be something like (see [https://forge.ipsl.jussieu.fr/nemo/browser/trunk/CONFIG/ORCA2_LIM/EXP00/namelist)[[BR https://forge.ipsl.jussieu.fr/nemo/browser/trunk/CONFIG/ORCA2_LIM/EXP00/namelist )] 15 15 16 !-------------------------------[[BR]] &namobs ! observation usage switch[[BR]] !----------------------------------[[BR]] 17 18 ln_t3d = .true. ! Logical switch for T profile observations [[BR]] ln_s3d = .true. ! Logical switch for S profile observations[[BR]] 16 !-------------------------------[[BR]] &namobs ! observation usage switch[[BR]] !----------------------------------[[BR]] ln_t3d = .true. ! Logical switch for T profile observations [[BR]] ln_s3d = .true. ! Logical switch for S profile observations[[BR]] 19 17 20 18 Usually, we report the namelist modifications for each standard configuration under CONFIG directory, even when they are not in use and all parameters et to false (it's quite painful to do) … … 30 28 & psinu, pcosu, psinv, pcosv! copy of data 31 29 32 could be 33 34 REAL(wp), DIMENSION(jpi,jpj), INTENT( OUT ):: psinu, pcosu, psinv, pcosv! copy of data 30 could be REAL(wp), DIMENSION(jpi,jpj), INTENT( OUT ):: psinu, pcosu, psinv, pcosv! copy of data 35 31 36 32 * OPA_SRC/OBS : [[BR]] header is missing in new routines (see existing routine), sometimes there are reference to NEMOVAR licence[[BR]] 37 33 38 !!----------------------------------------------------------------------[[BR]] 39 !! NEMO/OPA 3.3 , LOCEAN-IPSL (2010)[[BR]] 40 !! $Id$[[BR]] !! Software governed by the CeCILL licence (modipsl/doc/NEMO_CeCILL.txt)[[BR]] 41 !!----------------------------------------------------------------------[[BR]] 34 !!----------------------------------------------------------------------[[BR]] !! NEMO/OPA 3.3 , LOCEAN-IPSL (2010)[[BR]] !! $Id$[[BR]] !! Software governed by the CeCILL licence (modipsl/doc/NEMO_CeCILL.txt)[[BR]] !!----------------------------------------------------------------------[[BR]] 42 35 43 36 * same remark as above for some declarations on several lines with &[[BR]] … … 53 46 USE IOIPSL[[BR]] CALL ymds2ju (year,month,day,sec,julian)[[BR]] CALL ju2ymds (julian,year,month,day,sec)[[BR]] 54 47 55 * It may be logical to define kind of data fbsp and fbdp in par_kind.F90 rather than in obs_fbm[[BR]] 48 * It may be logical to define kind of data fbsp and fbdp in par_kind.F90 rather than in obs_fbm[[BR]] 56 49 * Using nf90_open rather than iom_open may be a sources a problem when using nesting (maybe one day) with key agrif 57 50 … … 60 53 It would be nice to have access to an observation file or at least a link to one in the routine 61 54 62 63 55 '''Ticket Details, Documentation and Code changes''' 64 56 65 ||Do you understand the area of code being altered and the reasoning why it is being altered?||YES /NO||66 ||Do the proposed code changes correspond with the stated reason for the change?||YES /NO||67 ||Is the in-line documentation accurate and sufficient?||YES /NO||68 ||Do the code changes comply with NEMO coding standards?||YES /NO||69 ||Is the Ticket documented with sufficient detail for others to understand the impact of the change?||YES /NO||70 ||Does any corresponding external documentation require updating?||YES /NO||71 ||If yes, which docs and have the updates been drafted?|| YES/NO||72 ||Are namelist changes required for this change?||YES /NO||73 ||If yes, have they been done?|| YES/NO||74 ||Has a completed Ticket Summary template been appended to the ticket to aid code reviews||YES /NO||75 ||Does this summary correspond with your understanding of the full ticket?||YES /NO||57 ||Do you understand the area of code being altered and the reasoning why it is being altered?||YES|| 58 ||Do the proposed code changes correspond with the stated reason for the change?||YES|| 59 ||Is the in-line documentation accurate and sufficient?||YES|| 60 ||Do the code changes comply with NEMO coding standards?||YES|| 61 ||Is the Ticket documented with sufficient detail for others to understand the impact of the change?||YES|| 62 ||Does any corresponding external documentation require updating?||YES|| 63 ||If yes, which docs and have the updates been drafted?||NO|| 64 ||Are namelist changes required for this change?||YES|| 65 ||If yes, have they been done?||NO|| 66 ||Has a completed Ticket Summary template been appended to the ticket to aid code reviews||YES|| 67 ||Does this summary correspond with your understanding of the full ticket?||YES|| 76 68 77 69 Ticket, Documentation and Code comments … … 81 73 === Testing === 82 74 ||Has the NVTK and other jobs been tested with this change?||YES/NO|| 83 ||Have the required bit comparability tests been run?||YES /NO||84 ||Can this change be shown to have a null impact? (if option not selected)||YES /NO||75 ||Have the required bit comparability tests been run?||YES|| 76 ||Can this change be shown to have a null impact? (if option not selected)||YES|| 85 77 ||If no, is reason for the change valid/understood?||YES/NO/NA|| 86 78 ||If no, ensure that the ticket details the impact this change will have on model configurations .||YES/NO/NA|| 87 ||Is this change expected to preserve all diagnostics?||YES /NO||79 ||Is this change expected to preserve all diagnostics?||YES|| 88 80 ||If no, is reason for the change valid/understood?||YES/NO/NA|| 89 81 ||Are there significant changes in run time/memory?||YES/NO||
