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..........