Version 7 (modified by clem, 4 years ago) (diff)


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.


The action has to be detailed briefly in the 'Summary' section for later inclusion in other pages.
Edit the 'Summary' section as with an ordinary wiki page.

  • Italic formatting shows the default values or help.
  • Set specific Trac Links (development ticket and branch).

Out of this, the rest of the page can be edited on-line inside the form fields considering the following color code given hereafter.

Role / Color code

PI(S) Previewer(s) Reviewer(s)

Record your modifications for the section you have edited by clicking on the corresponding button at the end of the section with 'Save …' button. Just above, the log record will be updated.

The informations inside the form fields and this wiki page itself are stored in 2 separate databases.
As a consequence, there is absolutely no risk to make any modification in the page itself as long as you don't rename the page or modify the source code of {{{#!TracForm ... }}} processors.


Action ENHANCE-16_Clement_ICEMODEL
PI(S) Clement Rousset


A framework for the new sea ice model will be implemented in NEMO for the next release 4.0.

Dependencies Depends on 1) dev_r8126_ROBUST08_no_ghost & 2) dev_r6859_LIM3_meltponds & 3) v3_6_CMIP6_ice_diagnostics
Target deadline merge december 2017
Trac Ticket #XXXX
SVN branch branches/2017/dev_r8183_ICEMODEL/
Previewer(s) Names
Reviewer(s) Names
Status In progress

'.' => '/nemo/wiki/2017WP/ENHANCE-16_Clement_ICEMODEL'


This section should be completed before starting to develop the code, in order to find agreement on the method beforehand.


New framework for ESIM (European Sea Ice Model)


  • The branch "icemodel" is created from trunk@r8183
  • r8231: branches dev_r8126_ROBUST08_no_ghost and dev_r8127_AGRIF_LIM3_GHOST are merged with trunk and debugged
  • r8237: branch dev_r6859_LIM3_meltponds is merged into "icemodel" and debugged
  • r8294: branch v3_6_CMIP6_ice_diagnostics is merged into "icemodel" and debugged

All sette tests ran on r8294

  • AMM12 Ok
  • SAS repro not tested and restart not Ok although SAS_BIPER is restartable
  • ORCA2_NAG repro Ok
  • ORCA2AGUL repro Ok but restart not Ok

Other configurations ran for 4 months (suffix "R8292")

  • SAS_BIPER (only a couple of days to test restart)
  • CREG025
  • FER

Ongoing implementation

  • r8311: step1 completed = remove LIM2
  • r8319: step2 completed = remove obsolete features
  • r8324: step3 completed = clean separation ice and ocean modules
  • r8370: step4 completed = put every thermo in 1D
  • r8380: all sette tests passed (as for r8294)

Note: r8321 is identical to r8294 if we revert ICB changes and previous fraction lead (pfrld). Therefore all is good so far.

New reference is r8380 ⇒ sette OK (except restart for aghulas)

Reference manual and web pages updates

Updated on 09/26/2021 15:21:47 by anonymous

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.


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.
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.

Questions Answer Comment
Does the previewer agree with the proposed methodology?
Does the previewer agree with the proposed flowchart and list of routines to be changed?
Does the previewer agree with the proposed new list of variables, including agreement with coding rules?
Does the previewer agree with the proposed summary of updates in reference manual?
… … …

Updated on 09/26/2021 15:21:47 by anonymous

Once all "YES" have been reached, the PI can start the development into his development branch.


Once the development is done, the PI should complete this section below and ask the reviewers to start their review in the lower section.

Questions Answer Comment
Can this change be shown to produce expected impact? (if option activated)?
Can this change be shown to have a null impact? (if option not activated)
Detailed results of restartability and reproducibility when the option is activated. Please indicate the configuration used for this test
Detailed results of SETTE tests (restartability and reproducibility for each of the reference configuration)
Results of the required bit comparability tests been run: Are there no differences when activating the development?
If some differences appear, is reason for the change valid/understood?
If some differences appear, is the !ticket describing in detail the impact this change will have on model configurations?
Is this change expected to preserve all diagnostics?
If no, is reason for the change valid/understood?
Are there significant changes in run time/memory?
… … …

Updated on 09/26/2021 15:21:47 by anonymous


A successful review is needed to schedule the merge of this development into the future NEMO release during next Merge Party (usually in November).

Code changes and documentation

Question Answer Comment
Is the proposed methodology now implemented?
Are the code changes in agreement with the flowchart defined at Preview step?
Are the code changes in agreement with list of routines and variables as proposed at Preview step?
If not, are the discrepancies acceptable?
Is the in-line documentation accurate and sufficient?
Do the code changes comply with NEMO coding standards?
Is the !ticket of development documented with sufficient details for others to understand the impact of the change?
Are the reference manual tex files now updated following the proposed summary in preview section?
Is there a need for some documentation on the web pages (in addition to in-line and reference manual)?
If yes, please describe and ask PI. A yes answer must include all documentation available.
… … …

Review Summary

Is the review fully successful?

Updated on 09/26/2021 15:21:47 by anonymous

Once review is successful, the development must be scheduled for merge during next Merge Party Meeting.