| 1 | [[PageOutline]] |
| 2 | Last edited [[Timestamp]] |
| 3 | |
| 4 | [[BR]] |
| 5 | |
| 6 | '''Author''' : Pierre Mathiot |
| 7 | |
| 8 | '''ticket''' : #1473 |
| 9 | |
| 10 | '''Branch''' : [https://forge.ipsl.jussieu.fr/nemo/browser/branches/dev_r5094_UKMO_ISFCLEAN dev_r5094_UKMO_ISFCLEAN ] |
| 11 | ---- |
| 12 | |
| 13 | === Description === |
| 14 | The main issue is the order of the loop when we need to start from mikt(ji,jj). To order the loop jk/jj/ji instead of jj/ji/jk, the first solution is to create a wmask, wumask and wvmask in order to mask all the variable at w point properly. Like this the mask system can be applied at the top as it is done at the bottom. |
| 15 | |
| 16 | In some place we also need to change the order between the initialisation of the interior value and surface value (3D loop jj/ji/jk => 2D loop jj/ji with mikt in it) |
| 17 | |
| 18 | Duplication of some routine are done in order to keep the same performance than the one before the merge if ln_isfcav is false (hpg_sco => hpg_isf and zps_hde => zps_hde_isf and the old one are restore) |
| 19 | |
| 20 | ---- |
| 21 | === Testing === |
| 22 | Testing could consider (where appropriate) other configurations in addition to NVTK]. |
| 23 | |
| 24 | ||NVTK Tested||!'''YES/NO!'''|| |
| 25 | ||Other model configurations||!'''YES/NO!'''|| |
| 26 | ||Processor configurations tested||[ Enter processor configs tested here ]|| |
| 27 | ||If adding new functionality please confirm that the [[BR]]New code doesn't change results when it is switched off [[BR]]and !''works!'' when switched on||!'''YES/NO/NA!'''|| |
| 28 | |
| 29 | (Answering UNSURE is likely to generate further questions from reviewers.) |
| 30 | |
| 31 | 'Please add further summary details here' |
| 32 | |
| 33 | * Processor configurations tested |
| 34 | * etc---- |
| 35 | |
| 36 | === Bit Comparability === |
| 37 | ||Does this change preserve answers in your tested standard configurations (to the last bit) ?||!'''YES/NO !'''|| |
| 38 | ||Does this change bit compare across various processor configurations. (1xM, Nx1 and MxN are recommended)||!'''YES/NO!'''|| |
| 39 | ||Is this change expected to preserve answers in all possible model configurations?||!'''YES/NO!'''|| |
| 40 | ||Is this change expected to preserve all diagnostics? [[BR]]!,,!''Preserving answers in model runs does not necessarily imply preserved diagnostics. !''||!'''YES/NO!'''|| |
| 41 | |
| 42 | If you answered !'''NO!''' to any of the above, please provide further details: |
| 43 | |
| 44 | * Which routine(s) are causing the difference? |
| 45 | * Why the changes are not protected by a logical switch or new section-version |
| 46 | * 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. |
| 47 | * What do you expect to see occur in the test harness jobs? |
| 48 | * Which diagnostics have you altered and why have they changed?Please add details here........ |
| 49 | |
| 50 | ---- |
| 51 | === System Changes === |
| 52 | ||Does your change alter namelists?||!'''YES/NO !'''|| |
| 53 | ||Does your change require a change in compiler options?||!'''YES/NO !'''|| |
| 54 | |
| 55 | If any of these apply, please document the changes required here....... |
| 56 | |
| 57 | ---- |
| 58 | === Resources === |
| 59 | !''Please !''summarize!'' any changes in runtime or memory use caused by this change......!'' |
| 60 | |
| 61 | ---- |
| 62 | === IPR issues === |
| 63 | ||Has the code been wholly (100%) produced by NEMO developers staff working exclusively on NEMO?||!'''YES/ NO !'''|| |
| 64 | |
| 65 | If No: |
| 66 | |
| 67 | * Identify the collaboration agreement details |
| 68 | * Ensure the code routine header is in accordance with the agreement, (Copyright/Redistribution etc).Add further details here if required.......... |