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..........