Changes between Version 7 and Version 8 of ticket/1495_UKMO_ISF

Timestamp:

2015-08-04T13:54:30+02:00 (9 years ago)

Author:

mathiot

Comment:

--

ticket/1495_UKMO_ISF

@@ -32 +32 @@
 ----
 === Testing ===
-Testing could consider (where appropriate) other configurations in addition to NVTK].
+Testing could consider (where appropriate) other configurations in addition to NVTK]. All the validation test are done with the version 3.6_STABLE at revision r5554.
 
-||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 [[BR]]New code doesn't change results when it is switched off [[BR]]and !''works!'' when switched on||!'''YES/NO/NA!'''||
+||NVTK Tested||'''YES'''||
+||Other model configurations||'''YES (ePERIANT025)'''||
+||Processor configurations tested||37/35/836||
+||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'''||
 
 (Answering UNSURE is likely to generate further questions from reviewers.)
@@ -47 +47 @@
 
 === 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? [[BR]]!,,!''Preserving answers in model runs does not necessarily imply preserved diagnostics. !''||!'''YES/NO!'''||
+||Does this change preserve answers in your tested standard configurations (to the last bit) ?||'''YES (except for ISOMIP)'''||
+||Does this change bit compare across various processor configurations. (1xM, Nx1 and MxN are recommended)||'''YES'''||
+||Is this change expected to preserve answers in all possible model configurations?||'''YES (for untested possible configuration a flag is set up to flase to stop the model)'''||
+||Is this change expected to preserve all diagnostics? [[BR]]!,,!''Preserving answers in model runs does not necessarily imply preserved diagnostics. !''||'''YES'''||
 
-If you answered !'''NO!''' to any of the above, please provide further details:
+If you answered '''NO''' to any of the above, please provide further details:
 
  * Which routine(s) are causing the difference?
@@ -62 +62 @@
 ----
 === System Changes ===
-||Does your change alter namelists?||!'''YES/NO !'''||
-||Does your change require a change in compiler options?||!'''YES/NO !'''||
+||Does your change alter namelists?||'''YES'''||
+||Does your change require a change in compiler options?||'''NO'''||
 
 If any of these apply, please document the changes required here.......
+
+{{{
+!-----------------------------------------------------------------------
+&namsbc        !   Surface Boundary Condition (surface module)
+!-----------------------------------------------------------------------
+   ...
+   ln_rnf      = .true.    !  runoffs                                   (T   => fill namsbc_rnf)
+   ln_isf      = .false.   !  ice shelf                                 (T   => fill namsbc_isf)
+   ...
+}}}
+{{{
+!-----------------------------------------------------------------------
+&namsbc_isf    !  Top boundary layer (ISF)
+!-----------------------------------------------------------------------
+...
+! for all case
+   nn_isf      = 1         !  ice shelf melting/freezing
+                           !  1 = presence of ISF    2 = bg03 parametrisation
+                           !  3 = rnf file for isf   4 = ISF fwf specified
+                           !  option 1 and 4 need ln_isfcav = .true. (domzgr)
+...
+}}}
+ and in namsbc_isf ln_divisf was removed and in namsbc nn_isf was moved to namsbc_isf.
 
 ----