Last edited Timestamp?

Author : Pierre Mathiot

ticket : #1473

Branch : dev_r5094_UKMO_ISFCLEAN

---

Description

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.

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)

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)

---

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..........