New URL for NEMO forge!   http://forge.nemo-ocean.eu

Since March 2022 along with NEMO 4.2 release, the code development moved to a self-hosted GitLab.
This present forge is now archived and remained online for history.
ticket/1775_TOP_Offline_vvl (diff) – NEMO

Changes between Version 1 and Version 2 of ticket/1775_TOP_Offline_vvl


Ignore:
Timestamp:
2016-09-21T09:55:57+02:00 (8 years ago)
Author:
cetlod
Comment:

--

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified

  • ticket/1775_TOP_Offline_vvl

    v1 v2  
    1 = Form page for development work = 
     1= [[PageOutline]] Last edited [[Timestamp]] 
    22 
     3'''Author''' : Simona Flavoni 
    34 
    4 == Help == 
    5 A wiki page associated with a given action should be created in `wiki/${YEAR}WP/${WORKING_GROUP|INSTITUTE}-${ACTION_NUMBER}_${PI}` using this template. '''Each editor (PI/Previewer/Reviewer) complete its section inside the form fields and save its modifications by clicking on the 'Save' button at the end of the section''' (last modification record will be updated just above it).[[BR]] 
     5'''ticket''' : #1692 
    66 
    7 This is the '''color code''' for the fulfilment of this form: 
    8 {{{#!td style='background:lightgrey' 
    9 '''PI(S)''' 
    10 }}} 
    11 {{{#!td style='background:lightblue' 
    12 '''Previewer(s)''' 
    13 }}} 
    14 {{{#!td style='background:lightgreen' 
    15 '''Reviewer(s)''' 
    16 }}} 
     7'''Branch''' : [https://forge.ipsl.jussieu.fr/nemo/browser/branches/2016/dev_r6409_SIMPLIF_2_usrdef 2016/dev_r6409_SIMPLIF_2_usrdef] 
    178 
    18 '''There is absolutely no risk for all form content to make any modification in the wiki page as long as you edit out of `{{{TracForm ... }}}` processor'''. The data of a form field is stored in a different database from the wiki page, so you can delete a version or submit a new one without danger.[[BR]] 
    19  
    20 '''For the Trac links to associated !ticket & development branch, it is mandatory to edit the page in `textarea` view'''. The `wysiwyg` view will alter the interpretation of the Trac processors `{{{#!th ... }}}` or `{{{#!td ... }}}` in the table.[[BR]] 
    21 ''To keep a preview, you can tick the box `edit side-by-side` at top right of the editing frame. It will part your screen with the editing view on the left and the preview on the right so you can control your changes. If you get by default the 'wysiwyg' view, this is due to your last editing work and can be changed in a simple manner.'' 
     9'''WP2016 Action''' : SIMPLIF-2 
    2210 
    2311---- 
     12[[BR]]'''REMARK:''' 
    2413 
    25 [[PageOutline(2)]] 
     14look at this old page (2014) : https://forge.ipsl.jussieu.fr/nemo/wiki/2014WP/2014_SystemSimplification_hard_coding to see '''what is STILL missing''' (for example diafwb, closea, etc..) 
    2615 
    27 The PI is responsible to closely follow the progress of the action, and especially to contact NEMO project manager if the delay on preview (or review) are longer than the 2 weeks expected.[[BR]] 
     16Notes of development of simplification-2 strategy 
    2817 
    29 == Abstract == 
     18 = 
     19= Modification from revision '''6593''' to next one (revision '''6595''') = 
     20= These changes doesn’t change de GYRE results (in both ln_read_cfg = T and F)'''[[BR]]'''[[BR]][[BR]]'''domwri.F90''' and '''par_oce.F90'''[[BR]]Add jpkglo in par_oce[[BR]]Add jpiglo, jpjglo and jpkglo in mesh_mask file[[BR]][[BR]]'''domhgr.F90''', '''usrdef.F90''', and '''nemogcm.F90 '''[[BR]]create usr_def_nam to read the namusr_def which allows to specify the global domain sizes (jpiglo,jpjglo,jpkglo) [[BR]]change nn_bench into ln_bench read in namusr_def. ln_bench is now a variable known only by usrdef.F90 module. Remove nbench and nn_bench everywhere else (namelist_ref, nemogcm.F90, sbcana, in_out_manager.F90)[[BR]]nemo_init : add read of jpiglo, jpjglo and jpkglo or their setting in usr_def_nam'''[[BR]][[BR]]domhgr.F90''', and''' usrdef.F90[[BR]]'''add all hgr arrays in argument of hgr_read and usr_def_hgr [[BR]]remove kbench and k_cfg from usr_def_hgr arguments (same argueent in [[BR]]both hgr_read and usr_def_hgr)[[BR]]domhgr: - remove useless local variable declaration[[BR]]- add control print for iff and ie1e2u_v cases'''[[BR]][[BR]][[BR]]sbcana.F90 '''and''' namsbc_ana '''removed from the code'''[[BR]]'''ln_ana replaced by ln_usr in namsbc[[BR]]jp_ana replaced by jp_usr in sbcmod.F90[[BR]]remove sbcana.F90 from the code'''[[BR]][[BR]]usrdef_sbc.F90 [[BR]]'''remove the use of ln_bench by constraining the use of key_mpp_rep[[BR]]CAUTION : this changes the results of the reference GYRE which is without[[BR]]this key ===>>> update the reference run used to compare the results, with [[BR]]a new run with the key_mpp_rep[[BR]]'''[[BR]][[BR]]Namelist of all configuration + namelist_ref :[[BR]]'''- namelist_ref /namsbc : ln_blk_core = .true. ===>>> = .false.[[BR]]and thus add ln_blk_core = .true. in all ORCA configuration namelist_cfg[[BR]]Change ln_ana into ln_usr and thus also change all GYRE configuration[[BR]]'''[[BR]]''' 
    3021 
    31 This section should be completed before starting to develop the code, in order to find agreement on the method beforehand. 
     22 = 
     23= Modification from revision '''6595''' to next one (revision '''6596''') = 
     24= These changes doesn’t change de GYRE results (in both ln_read_cfg = T and F)[[BR]] 
    3225 
    33 {{{ 
    34 #!TracForm 
    35 #!subcontext abstract 
    36 #!submit_label 'Save Abstract' 
    37 #!keep_history yes 
    38 '''__Details__'''[[BR]] 
    39 {{{#!th align=left 
    40 Action 
    41 }}} 
    42 {{{#!td 
    43 [tf.input:action -id=piform '${WORKING_GROUP|INSTITUTE}-${ACTION_NUMBER} $Title' 100] 
    44 }}} 
    45 |- 
    46 {{{#!th align=left style='background:lightgrey' 
    47 PI(S)  
    48 }}} 
    49 {{{#!td 
    50 [tf.input:pi -id=piform 'Names' 100] 
    51 }}} 
    52 |- 
    53 {{{#!th align=left 
    54 {{{#!html 
    55 <font style='background-color:#fcb; color:#500'>Ticket</font> 
    56 }}} 
    57 }}} 
    58 {{{#!td style='background:lightgrey' 
    59 #XXXX 
    60 }}} 
    61 |- 
    62 {{{#!th align=left 
    63 {{{#!html 
    64 <font style='background-color:#fcb; color:#500'>Branch</font> 
    65 }}} 
    66 }}} 
    67 {{{#!td style='background:lightgrey' 
    68 [source:/branches/$YEAR/dev_r${FORK_REVISION}_${WORKING_GROUP|INSTITUTE}${ACTION_NUMBER}_${PURPOSE}] 
    69 }}} 
    70 |- 
    71 {{{#!th align=left style='background-color:lightblue' 
    72 Previewer(s) 
    73 }}} 
    74 {{{#!td 
    75 [tf.input:previewers -id=piform 'Names' 100] 
    76 }}} 
    77 |- 
    78 {{{#!th align=left style='background-color:lightgreen' 
    79 Reviewer(s) 
    80 }}} 
    81 {{{#!td 
    82 [tf.input:reviewers -id=piform 'Names' 100] 
    83 }}} 
    84 [[span(To enabling the !ticket and the source links related to your action, edit the form like a ordinary wiki page to hardcode them inside the table, style=background-color:#fcb;color:#500)]] 
     26Revision 6596 includes step.I and II that follow.[[BR]]'''[[BR]][[BR]]Idea : simplification of the namelist resulting from modification in hgr[[BR]][[BR]][[BR]]Step I : '''remove from namelist : jphgr_msh , [[BR]]ppglam0, ppgphi0 [[BR]]ppe1_deg, ppe2_deg, ppe1_m, ppe2_m[[BR]][[BR]]This requires the following changes:'''[[BR]][[BR]]'''LIM2 and LIM3 needs the Coriolis parameter at T-points[[BR]]==>> Introduce in dom_oce both Coriolis at T- and F-point : '''ff_t and ff_f,''' resp.[[BR]]This implies changes in all routines of both OPA and LIM_(2/3) that were using[[BR]]either ff or fcor.[[BR]]NB: the change of name for Coriolis parameter is quite useful. Indeed, with the [[BR]]old name (ff) it was impossible to find where coriolis was used as ‘ff’ appears in [[BR]]too many comments (nearly all modules !)[[BR]]NB: changes also include a small bug correction in ldftra.F90'''[[BR]][[BR]]'''Add in hgr_read and usr_def_hgr the read / calculation of ff_t, coriolis at [[BR]]T-point, and use it in LIM (nomore fcor calculation in limmsh(_2)[[BR]]==>> modification in dom_oce.F90, domhgr, hgr_read, usr_def_hgr, [[BR]]limmsh_2.F90 , and limmsh.F90 + others…[[BR]]including dyncor_c1d.F90'''[[BR]][[BR]]NEMO//OFF_SRC/domrea.F90 [[BR]]'''simply remove jphgr_msh from this routine and from the associated namelist 
    8527 
    86 '''__Description__''' 
    87  [tf.textarea:description -id=piform -class=taform 'Describe the goal of development, and the methodology.\n\nAdd reference documents or publications if relevant.' 0 20] 
    88 '''__Implementation__''' 
    89  [tf.textarea:implementation -id=piform -class=taform 'Describe flow chart of the changes in the code.\n\nList the .F90 files and modules to be changed.\n\nDetailed list of new variables (including namelists) to be defined.\nGive for each the chosen name (following coding rules) and definition.' 0 20] 
    90 '''__Reference manual and web pages updates__''' 
    91  [tf.textarea:manual -id=piform -class=taform 'Using part 1 and 2, define the summary of changes to be done in the NEMO reference manual (tex files), and in the content of web pages.' 0 20] 
     28'''NEMO//OPA_SRC/CRS/crsini.F90[[BR]]'''remove jphgr_msh from this routine. A deeper check is needed, since I don’t [[BR]]think we need a coriolis coarsened (perhaps yes to compute div coeff??) 
    9229 
    93 '''Updated on [tf.form_updated_on:] by [tf.form_updater:]''' 
    94 }}} 
     30'''NEMO//OPA_SRC/DOM/domngb.F90[[BR]]'''remove the shorter calculation for jphgr_msh = 2 or 3 
    9531 
    96 Once the PI has completed this section, he should send a mail to the previewer(s) asking them to preview the work within two weeks. 
     32'''NEMO//OPA_SRC/DOM/domzgr.F90[[BR]]'''remove the definition of a bump of topography in EEL case [[BR]]This should be implemented using usrdef.F90, therefore no more in the [[BR]]reference code'''[[BR]][[BR]]====>>>> '''run identical with both ln_read_cfg = T and F (with '''key_mpp_rep''' !)[[BR]]'''[[BR]]Not done : case C1D ==>>> '''the interface will have to be completely changed using the new user-defined interface…. (change to be done in domc1d.F90)[[BR]]'''[[BR]][[BR]]Step II : '''remove from namelist: jpiglo, jpjglo, jpk,[[BR]]jpidta, jpjdta, jpkdta[[BR]]remove from the code jpizoom, jpjzoom'''[[BR]][[BR]]removed from the namelist, not from the code at this stage as :[[BR]]'''jp.dta = jp.glo is set in nemo_init[[BR]]==>> namcfg changed, as well as nemogcm.F90'''[[BR]][[BR]]'''replace '''jpizoom by 1''' (idem for '''jpjzoom''') everywhere.[[BR]]==>> a lot of modules involved'''[[BR]][[BR]]domzgr.F90''', remove zgr_bat_zoom routine and its CALL'''[[BR]][[BR]]'''remove loom and lzoom_e,w,n,s everywhere'''[[BR]][[BR]]====>>>> '''run identical with both ln_read_cfg = T and F (with '''key_mpp_rep '''!)'''[[BR]][[BR]]Not done : case C1D ==>>> '''the interface will have to be completely changed using the new user-defined interface…. (change to be done in domc1d.F90)'''[[BR]][[BR]]Not done : DOC update… ===>>> '''this should be started after the definition of zgr interface '''[[BR]][[BR]][[BR]][[BR]]Step III :''' create '''domain_cfg.nc''' file '''[[BR]][[BR]]'''Modification from revision '''6596''' to next one (revision '''6624''')[[BR]]====>>>> run identical with both ln_read_cfg = T and F (with '''key_mpp_rep '''!)'''[[BR]][[BR]]'''- create '''cfg_wri''' (put in '''domain.F90)''' that will be used in old version to create the configuration input file (I name it domain_cfg.nc) [[BR]]This file is created if nn_msh = -1. When ln_read_cfg=T we now read domain_cfg.nc file (no more mesh_mask file)[[BR]] 
    9733 
    98 == Preview == 
     34 * add in this file all the information I think useful for a configuration[[BR]]in particular addition of '''jperio''' (read in dom_ or set usr_def )[[BR]]and also equivalent of''' ln_zco, lnzps, ln_sco, ln_isfcav'''[[BR]] 
    9935 
    100 Since the preview step must be completed before the PI starts the coding, the previewer(s) answers are expected to be completed within the two weeks after the PI has sent his request.[[BR]]For each question, an iterative process should take place between PI and previewer(s) in order to reach a "YES" answer for each of the following questions. 
     36 * add in '''domzgr.F90''' a routine zgr_read to read the information [[BR]]'''===>>> CAUTION''' zgr_read has not been tested, and in not called[[BR]]- move jperio from par_oce to dom_oce (i.e. same place as nperio)'''[[BR]][[BR]]'''minor: '''[[BR]]'''- remove domstp.F90 together with atfp1 which is not used anymore[[BR]]- move “ocean domain parameters” print from phycst to domain.F90[[BR]]- remove jperio and cp_cfz from namelist (namcfg) (NB: cp_cfz remove from the whole code)[[BR]]'''[[BR]][[BR]]Ideas for future ( NOT strictly linked to SIMPLIF-2) :[[BR]][[BR]]1:''' 
    10137 
    102 {{{ 
    103 #!TracForm 
    104 #!subcontext preview_ 
    105 #!submit_label 'Save Preview' 
    106 || Questions || Answer || Comment || 
    107 || Does the previewer agree with the proposed methodology? || [tf.select:2.1 -id=preform '' Yes No NR] || [tf.textarea:2.1c -id=preform 'Add a comment?' 50 10] || 
    108 || Does the previewer agree with the proposed flowchart and list of routines to be changed? || [tf.select:2.2 -id=preform '' Yes No NR] || [tf.textarea:2.2c -id=preform 'Add a comment?' 50 10] || 
    109 || Does the previewer agree with the proposed new list of variables, including agreement with coding rules? || [tf.select:2.3 -id=preform '' Yes No NR] || [tf.textarea:2.3c -id=preform 'Add a comment?' 50 10] || 
    110 || Does the previewer agree with the proposed summary of updates in reference manual? || [tf.select:2.4 -id=preform '' Yes No NR] || [tf.textarea:2.4c -id=preform 'Add a comment?' 50 10] || 
    111 || ... ... ... || [tf.select:2.X -id=preform '' Yes No NR] || [tf.textarea:2.Xc -id=preform 'Add a comment?' 50 10] || 
     38change nn_timing in ln_timing ==> it implies to change all :[[BR]]IF( nn_timing == 1 ) …[[BR]]en[[BR]]IF( ln_timing ) …[[BR]]'''[[BR]]2:[[BR]]'''remove key_netcdf4 key as this is done in xIOS ??? not sure (see Andrew: => Andrew says we keep it!!)[[BR]]'''[[BR]][[BR]]domvvl.F90 :[[BR]]'''- first change the name, sshdom ??? or other thing[[BR]]- second, separate (z/zps/s)* cases from z-tilde case[[BR]]- third, revisite z-tilde case in the light of depth being the sum of scale factors[[BR]]and vise versa ! this will notably change the interpolation of e3w from e3t'''[[BR]][[BR]]jperio : [[BR]]'''- change the jperio into nperio_glo, move it from par_ to dom_oce (like nperio)[[BR]]- define np_ parameters associated with jperio choice :'''[[BR]]'''jperio= 0, closed '''np_closed[[BR]]'''jperio= 1, cyclic east-west '''np_ew_cyclic or np_EWc[[BR]]'''jperio= 2, equatorial symmetric '''np_eq_symmetric or np_Eqs[[BR]]'''jperio= 3, north fold with T-point pivot '''np_Tnfd[[BR]]'''jperio= 4, cyclic east-west and north fold with T-point pivot '''np_ewc_Tnfd or np_EWc_Tnfd[[BR]]'''jperio= 5, north fold with F-point pivot''' np_Fnfd[[BR]]'''jperio= 6, cyclic east-west and north fold with F-point pivot''' np_ewc_Fnfd or np_EWc_Fnfd''' 
    11239 
    113 '''Updated on [tf.form_updated_on:] by [tf.form_updater:]''' 
    114 }}} 
     40and replace all test of 0 to 6 by the corresponding np_….'''[[BR]][[BR]]URGENT '''(to be done before release): modification of '''dom_cfg''' 
    11541 
    116 Once all "YES" have been reached, the PI can start the development into his development branch. 
     42'''[[BR]]DOM ZGR analyses[[BR]][[BR]]'''dom_zgr 
    11743 
    118 == Tests == 
     44  CALL '''zgr_z''' ! Reference z-coordinate system (always called)[[BR]]CALL '''zgr_bat''' ! Bathymetry fields (levels and meters)[[BR]]IF( lk_c1d ) CALL lbc_lnk( bathy , 'T', 1._wp ) ! 1D config.: same bathy value over the 3x3 domain 
    11945 
    120 Once the development is done, the PI should complete this section below and ask the reviewers to start their review in the lower section. 
     46IF( ln_zco ) CALL zgr_zco ! z-coordinate[[BR]]IF( ln_zps ) CALL zgr_zps ! Partial step z-coordinate[[BR]]IF( ln_sco ) CALL zgr_sco ! s-coordinate or hybrid z-s coordinate[[BR]]! [[BR]]! final adjustment of mbathy & check [[BR]]! ----------------------------------- 
    12147 
    122 {{{ 
    123 #!TracForm 
    124 #!subcontext tests 
    125 #!submit_label 'Save Tests' 
    126 || Questions || Answer || Comment || 
    127 || Can this change be shown to produce expected impact? (if option activated)? || [tf.select:3.1 -id=piform '' Yes No NR] || [tf.textarea:3.1c -id=piform 'Add a comment?' 50 10] || 
    128 || Can this change be shown to have a null impact? (if option not activated) || [tf.select:3.2 -id=piform '' Yes No NR] || [tf.textarea:3.2c -id=piform 'Add a comment?' 50 10] || 
    129 || Detailed results of restartability and reproducibility when the option is activated. Please indicate the configuration used for this test || [tf.select:3.3 -id=piform '' Yes No NR] || [tf.textarea:3.3c -id=piform 'Add a comment?' 50 10] || 
    130 || Detailed results of SETTE tests (restartability and reproducibility for each of the reference configuration) || [tf.select:3.4 -id=piform '' Yes No NR] || [tf.textarea:3.4c -id=piform 'Add a comment?' 50 10] || 
    131 || Results of the required bit comparability tests been run: Are there no differences when activating the development? || [tf.select:3.5 -id=piform '' Yes No NR] || [tf.textarea:3.5c -id=piform 'Add a comment?' 50 10] || 
    132 || If some differences appear, is reason for the change valid/understood? || [tf.select:3.6 -id=piform '' Yes No NR] || [tf.textarea:3.6c -id=piform 'Add a comment?' 50 10] || 
    133 || If some differences appear, is the !ticket describing in detail the impact this change will have on model configurations? || [tf.select:3.7 -id=piform '' Yes No NR] || [tf.textarea:3.7c -id=piform 'Add a comment?' 50 10] || 
    134 || Is this change expected to preserve all diagnostics? || [tf.select:3.8 -id=piform '' Yes No NR] || [tf.textarea:3.8c -id=piform 'Add a comment?' 50 10] || 
    135 || If no, is reason for the change valid/understood? || [tf.select:3.9 -id=piform '' Yes No NR] || [tf.textarea:3.9c -id=piform 'Add a comment?' 50 10] || 
    136 || Are there significant changes in run time/memory? || [tf.select:3.10 -id=piform '' Yes No NR] || [tf.textarea:3.10c -id=piform 'Add a comment?' 50 10] || 
    137 || ... ... ... || [tf.select:3.XX -id=piform '' Yes No NR] || [tf.textarea:3.XXc -id=piform 'Add a comment?' 50 10] || 
     48IF( lzoom ) CALL zgr_bat_zoom ! correct mbathy in case of zoom subdomain[[BR]]IF( .NOT.lk_c1d ) CALL zgr_bat_ctl ! check bathymetry (mbathy) and suppress isolated ocean points[[BR]]CALL zgr_bot_level ! deepest ocean level for t-, u- and v-points[[BR]]CALL zgr_top_level ! shallowest ocean level for T-, U-, V- points[[BR]][[BR]]——————[[BR]][[BR]]'''zgr_z'''[[BR]]gdept_1d, gdepw_1d[[BR]]e3t_1d , e3w_1d [[BR]]'''nlb10 [[BR]]nla10'''[[BR]][[BR]]'''>>>> : change nlb10 and nla10 from scalar field => to 2D field '''for s-coordinates[[BR]](if NOT the mixed layer is not really what we think to compute)[[BR]]idea: is good to open a ticket (so all people can see and fix it)[[BR]][[BR]]'''zgr_bat'''[[BR]]mbathy[[BR]]bathy >>>> = gdepw_1d(jpk) (flat bottom)[[BR]][[BR]]risfdep[[BR]]misfdep[[BR]][[BR]]'''zgr_zco >>>> from _1d values'''[[BR]]gdept_0 gdepw_0 '''gde3w_0(:,:,jk) '''[[BR]]e3t_0 (:,:,jk) e3u_0 (:,:,jk) e3v_0 (:,:,jk) e3f_0 (:,:,jk)[[BR]]e3w_0 (:,:,jk) e3uw_0 (:,:,jk) e3vw_0 (:,:,jk) [[BR]][[BR]]'''zgr_zps >>>> Idem zgr_zco'''[[BR]]gdept_0 gdepw_0 gde3w_0(:,:,jk) [[BR]]e3t_0 (:,:,jk) e3u_0 (:,:,jk) e3v_0 (:,:,jk) e3f_0 (:,:,jk)[[BR]]e3w_0 (:,:,jk) e3uw_0 (:,:,jk) e3vw_0 (:,:,jk) [[BR]][[BR]]'''zgr_isf'''[[BR]]risfdep[[BR]]misfdep[[BR]]mbathy[[BR]]bathy[[BR]][[BR]][[BR]]'''zgr_sco >>>> Idem zgr_zco'''[[BR]]gdept_0 gdepw_0 gde3w_0(:,:,jk) [[BR]]e3t_0 (:,:,jk) e3u_0 (:,:,jk) e3v_0 (:,:,jk) e3f_0 (:,:,jk)[[BR]]e3w_0 (:,:,jk) e3uw_0 (:,:,jk) e3vw_0 (:,:,jk) [[BR]][[BR]]'''URGENT:''' (urgent because dim_cfg changed)[[BR]]REMOVE gde3w and compte all e3T, e3w, e3uW, e3vw like:[[BR]]the sum of (delta) gdepT, gdepW, gdepUW, gdepVW [[BR]][[BR]]? but: are we sure that we want to remove all these ?[[BR]]? they can be useful for graphic use?[[BR]]? or we can output e3t,… optionally [[BR]][[BR]]'''=> simplification associated for dom_cfg because e3 output will be useless.'''[[BR]][[BR]][[BR]]zgr_bot_level[[BR]]mbkt, mbku, mbkv >>>> vertical indices of the deeptest ocean level[[BR]]mbku(ji,jj) = MIN( mbkt(ji+1,jj ) , mbkt(ji,jj) )[[BR]]mbkv(ji,jj) = MIN( mbkt(ji ,jj+1) , mbkt(ji,jj) )[[BR]][[BR]][[BR]][[BR]]zgr_top_level[[BR]]mikt, miku, mikv >>>> vertical indices of the shallowest ocean level 
    13849 
    139 '''Updated on [tf.form_updated_on:] by [tf.form_updater:]''' 
    140 }}} 
    141  
    142 == Review == 
    143  
    144 A successful review is needed to schedule the merge of this development into the future NEMO release during next Merge Party (usually in November). 
    145  
    146 {{{ 
    147 #!TracForm 
    148 #!subcontext review 
    149 #!submit_label 'Save Review' 
    150 '''__Code changes and documentation__'''[[BR]] 
    151 || Question || Answer || Comment || 
    152 || Is the proposed methodology now implemented? || [tf.select:3.11 -id=revform '' Yes No NR] || [tf.textarea:3.11c -id=revform 'Add a comment?' 50 10] || 
    153 || Are the code changes in agreement with the flowchart defined at Preview step? || [tf.select:3.12 -id=revform '' Yes No NR] || [tf.textarea:3.12c -id=revform 'Add a comment?' 50 10] || 
    154 || Are the code changes in agreement with list of routines and variables as proposed at Preview step?[[BR]]If not, are the discrepancies acceptable? || [tf.select:3.13 -id=revform '' Yes No NR] || [tf.textarea:3.13c -id=revform 'Add a comment?' 50 10] || 
    155 || Is the in-line documentation accurate and sufficient? || [tf.select:3.14 -id=revform '' Yes No NR] || [tf.textarea:3.14c -id=revform 'Add a comment?' 50 10] || 
    156 || Do the code changes comply with NEMO coding standards? || [tf.select:3.15 -id=revform '' Yes No NR] || [tf.textarea:3.15c -id=revform 'Add a comment?' 50 10] || 
    157 || Is the !ticket of development documented with sufficient details for others to understand the impact of the change? || [tf.select:3.16 -id=revform '' Yes No NR] || [tf.textarea:3.16c -id=revform 'Add a comment?' 50 10] || 
    158 || Are the reference manual tex files now updated following the proposed summary in preview section? || [tf.select:3.17 -id=revform '' Yes No NR] || [tf.textarea:3.17c -id=revform 'Add a comment?' 50 10] || 
    159 || Is there a need for some documentation on the web pages (in addition to in-line and reference manual)?[[BR]]If yes, please describe and ask PI. A yes answer must include all documentation available. || [tf.select:3.18 -id=revform '' Yes No NR] || [tf.textarea:3.18c -id=revform 'Add a comment?' 50 10] || 
    160 || ... ... ... || [tf.select:3.XX -id=revform '' Yes No NR] || [tf.textarea:3.XXc -id=revform 'Add a comment?' 50 10] || 
    161 '''__Review Summary__'''[[BR]] 
    162 Is the review fully successful?[tf.select:status -id=revform '' Yes No][[BR]] 
    163 [tf.textarea:comment -id=revform 'If not, please indicate what is still missing.' 50 10] 
    164  
    165 '''Updated on [tf.form_updated_on:] by [tf.form_updater:]''' 
    166 }}} 
    167  
    168 Once review is successful, the development must be scheduled for merge during next Merge Party Meeting. 
     50 =