Version 1 (modified by rblod, 6 years ago) (diff)

Last edited Timestamp?


Author : Rachid BEnshila

ticket : #1380

Branch : https://forge.ipsl.jussieu.fr/nemo/browser/branches/2014/dev_r4765_CNRS_agrif


Description

Update AGRIF to new version, this should allow :

  • to run multiple grid in parallel

  • call the subgrids recursively
  • to use procname in interpolation routines (NST_SRC), in the same way than update
  • potentially introduce higher order interpolations

The core routines and conv EXTERNAL/AGRIF are changed but this implies several changes in NST_SRC.

Step 1: update the dynamics only
Changes in OPA_SRC :

  • OPA_SRC/DOM/domhgr.F90 : lines too long for the conv
  • OPA_SRC/TRD/trdtra.F90 : lines too long for the conv
  • OPA_SRC/TRD/trdtra.F90 : lines too long for the conv
  • OPA_SRC/LBC/lib_mpp.F90 : call to mpi repartitio function
  • OPA_SRC/TRA/tranxt.F90 : move the call to agrif interpolation (not sure why)
  • OPA_SRC/nemogcm.F90: some declarations for the conv and change call to step, sub grids are no called from step
  • OPA_SRC/step.F90 : recursive call
  • OPA_SRC/zdftke.F90 : copy values at the boundaries


Changes in NST_SRC :

  • a lot, main change is the use of procname in agrif_opa_interp
  • add key DECAL_FEEDBACK in agrif_opa_update (not activated by default)


Config:
as always a lot of stuff are missing in 1_namelist and iodef …
Tested in ORCA2_LIM with key_dynspg_flt and key_dynspg_ts. Not a very relevant test, but at this stage it looks ok.


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……….