Version 3 (modified by rblod, 8 years ago) (diff)

Last edited Timestamp?


Author : S. Masson

ticket : #974

Branch : https://forge.ipsl.jussieu.fr/nemo/browser/branches/2012/dev_r3406_LOCEAN4_XIOS


Description

This is a brand new code so old one (XMLF90 and XML_IOSERVER) can be removed.
XIOS imported from http://forge.ipsl.jussieu.fr/ioserver/svn/XIOS/trunk (rev 348) and added under EXTERNAL with the following commands:

#!/bin/bash

prjname=nemo
userlog=rblod
forge=forge.ipsl.jussieu.fr

rootsrc=${userlog}@${forge}/ipsl/forge/projets/${prjname}/svn

#==========================
# create XIOS vendor
#==========================
#
vendor=XIOS
#
# get it:
svn export http://forge.ipsl.jussieu.fr/ioserver/svn/XIOS/trunk XIOS_SRC
# stupid untar
cd XIOS_SRC
for tarname in tools/archive/*.tar.gz; do tar -xzf "$tarname"; done
rm -rf tools/archive/*
rm -rf tools/FCM
cd -

# import it in vendors
svn import XIOS_SRC svn+ssh://${rootsrc}/vendors/${vendor}/current -m "importing initial ${vendor} vendor drop"
revname=r_348
svn copy svn+ssh://${rootsrc}/vendors/${vendor}/current svn+ssh://${rootsrc}/vendors/${vendor}/${revname} -m "tagging ${vendor} ${revname}"
rm -rf XIOS_SRC
#

#==========================
# import in external
#==========================
#svn copy  svn+ssh://rblod@forge.ipsl.jussieu.fr/ipsl/forge/projets/nemo/svn/vendors/XIOS_r348 svn+ssh://rblod@forge.ipsl.jussieu.fr/ipsl/forge/projets/nemo/svn/branches/2012/dev_r3406_LOCEAN4_XIOS/NEMOGCM/EXTERNAL/XIOS -m "Import XIOS in dev_r3406_LOCEAN4_XIOS"

Testing

Testing could consider (where appropriate) other configurations in addition to NVTK].

NVTK Tested'''YES/NO'''
Other model configurations'''YES/NO'''
Processor configurations tested[ Enter processor configs tested here ]
If adding new functionality please confirm that the
New code doesn't change results when it is switched off
and ''works'' when switched on
'''YES/NO/NA'''

(Answering UNSURE is likely to generate further questions from reviewers.)

'Please add further summary details here'

  • Processor configurations tested
  • etc——

Bit Comparability

Does this change preserve answers in your tested standard configurations (to the last bit) ?'''YES/NO '''
Does this change bit compare across various processor configurations. (1xM, Nx1 and MxN are recommended)'''YES/NO'''
Is this change expected to preserve answers in all possible model configurations?'''YES/NO'''
Is this change expected to preserve all diagnostics?
,,''Preserving answers in model runs does not necessarily imply preserved diagnostics. ''
'''YES/NO'''

If you answered '''NO''' to any of the above, please provide further details:

  • Which routine(s) are causing the difference?
  • Why the changes are not protected by a logical switch or new section-version
  • What is needed to achieve regression with the previous model release (e.g. a regression branch, hand-edits etc). If this is not possible, explain why not.
  • What do you expect to see occur in the test harness jobs?
  • Which diagnostics have you altered and why have they changed?Please add details here……..

System Changes

Does your change alter namelists?'''YES/NO '''
Does your change require a change in compiler options?'''YES/NO '''

If any of these apply, please document the changes required here…….


Resources

''Please ''summarize'' any changes in runtime or memory use caused by this change……''


IPR issues

Has the code been wholly (100%) produced by NEMO developers staff working exclusively on NEMO?'''YES/ NO '''

If No:

  • Identify the collaboration agreement details
  • Ensure the code routine header is in accordance with the agreement, (Copyright/Redistribution? etc).Add further details here if required……….