Version 6 (modified by mathiot, 5 years ago) (diff)

Last edited Timestamp?


Author : Pierre Mathiot

ticket : #1495

Branch : dev_r5151_UKMO_ISF


Description

  • Improvement of zgr_isf: one block change coastline every where ⇒ done
  • Improvement of sbc_isf: CALL statement in a 2d loop
  • Improvement of zpshde_isf: too much variable compute ⇒ done
  • Improvement of hpg_isf: can we used one as simple as for the bottom ⇒ done
  • Bug in zdfbfr: top friction initialisation missing ⇒ done
  • Change definition of mixed layer depth beneath ice shelf ⇒ done
  • Bug if ice shelf in ldfslp + change according to previous point ⇒ done
  • umask_i is not an interior mask, change it to ssumask (same on v, f)⇒ done
  • cleaning sbcisf ⇒ done

At this stage:

  • no change in result without ice shelf.
  • result of ISOMIP configuration changed due to bug correction bug ISOMIP result similar to the previous one and to Losch 2008 (after 28 years of simulation)
  • Validation with PERIANT025 underway

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……….

SVN command (merge)

merge at revision 5554 svn merge svn+ssh://mathiot@forge.ipsl.jussieu.fr/ipsl/forge/projets/nemo/svn/branches/2015/nemo_v3_6_STABLE