Last edited Timestamp?

For completion by the Sci/Tech/Code? reviewer

Reviewer: Rachel Furner

Ticket Details, Documentation and Code changes

Do you understand the area of code being altered and the reasoning why it is being altered?YES
Do the proposed code changes correspond with the stated reason for the change?YES
Is the in-line documentation accurate and sufficient?YES
Do the code changes comply with NEMO coding standards?NO
Is the Ticket documented with sufficient detail for others to understand the impact of the change?YES
Does any corresponding external documentation require updating?YES
If yes, which docs and have the updates been drafted?YES
Are namelist changes required for this change?YES
If yes, have they been done?YES
Has a completed Ticket Summary template been appended to the ticket to aid code reviewsYES
Does this summary correspond with your understanding of the full ticket?YES

Ticket, Documentation and Code comments

Note that the changes are not fully in keeping with the Coding standards, this is due to use of the GOTO function in TOOLS/SECTIONS_DIADCT/src/sections_tools.f90 As this piece of code is outside of the NEMO src code itself it is felt that the code can be accepted into the trunk, with the aim of removing use of the GOTO function at a later date.


Has the NVTK and other jobs been tested with this change?YES
Have the required bit comparability tests been run?YES
Can this change be shown to have a null impact? (if option not selected)YES
If no, is reason for the change valid/understood?NA
If no, ensure that the ticket details the impact this change will have on model configurations .NA
Is this change expected to preserve all diagnostics?YES
If no, is reason for the change valid/understood?NA
Are there significant changes in run time/memory?YES

Testing Comments

The code was also tested to ensure specification of the section as being from point a to point b, or from point b to point a had no effect on results.

Run time is increased when diadct is activated (see ticket for info), however there is no impact when the option is turned off

Code Review

Do the code changes comply with NEMO coding standards?NO
Are code changes consistent with the design of NEMO?YES
Is the code free of unwanted TABs?YES
Has the code been wholly (100%) produced by NEMO developers working on NEMO?YES
If no, ensure collaboration agreement has been added to the ticket keywords

See above comment regarding coding standards.

Review Summary

The code is well documented, with useful and clear comments throughout the code. It has been thoroughly tested and is a stand alone piece of code which not only has no impact on the code when switched off, but as it affects diagnostics only it also has no impact on model results when the option is activated. As such it seems suitable for inclusion in the next release.

Approval for the trunk


The code reviewer may approve the change for the NEMO trunk when:

  1. their requests/comments have been addressed satisfactorily.
  2. the above check-list has been completed.

or the code reviewer may choose to reject & assign the change back to the code author.

Last modified 9 years ago Last modified on 2011-10-18T13:08:14+02:00