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' for later inclusion in other pages. To do so, edit 'Summary' section as a common wiki page and set links for the development ticket and branch.

Out of this, the rest of the page ('Abstract'|'Preview'|'Tests'|'Review') can be edited on-line inside the form fields considering the following color code given hereafter: PI(S), Previewer(s) and 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-02_PierreMathiot_ISF
PI(S) Pierre Mathiot


Developments of ice shelf code:

  • Coupling with ice sheet model (method currently in test by UKESM based on NEMO 3.6):
    • new method to correct the dynamics part when restart after coupling with ice sheet model (more stable)
    • new method to correct the thermodynamic after coupling with an ice sheet model (decrease the spin up time of the new cells)
    • fixing issue with conservation routine when coupling to an active ice shelf model
  • Code cleaning:
    • code cleaning (move all ISF routines/subroutine in an ISF directory + general cleaning)
    • new geometry computation (old computation removed and rewriten from scratch based on discussion with BAS/Reading/IGE)
    • Check if all lbc_lnk are useful in ISF code. It is likely only lbc_lnk on utbl and vtbl are needed.
  • New simple capability:
    • split explicit cavity and parametrisation to run with some cavity (the giant for example) and a parametrisation for the small one and add it in WED025.
  • Configurations:
    • Add regional WED025 configuration (bdy + tide + sea ice + ice shelf) (Chris Bull configuration from BAS). Could replace SPITZ12.
    • Upgrade ISOMIP test case to ISOMIP+ with test of the coupling capability.
  • Update documentation accordingly
    • A dedicated ISF section as there is ISF directory

04/01/2020: to do but not done during 2019:

  • Move maybe iceload as input file or find a more robust way to compute it.
  • Remove all call to risfdep in NEMO as risfdep is equal to gdepw_n(ji,jj,mikt(ji,jj))
  • Is gde3w_n still useful as gdept = sum(e3w) by definition ?
  • Check and reply ISF Gurvan question in the code
  • Review the duplicated routine _isf and take action if simplification can be done
  • vertical gradient at the ice shelf based should be 0 (rm special case at the top interface in vertadv) (GM)
  • computation of ice load could be simplify (GM)

Wiki : https://forge.ipsl.jussieu.fr/nemo/wiki/2019WP/ENHANCE-02_PierreMathiot_ISF

Trac Ticket #2142
SVN branch branches/$YEAR/dev_r{REV}_{SCOPE}-{NUM}_{PIS}-{KEYWORDS}
Previewer(s) Nicolas Jourdain
Reviewer(s) Nicolas Jourdain

'.' => '/nemo/wiki/2019WP/ENHANCE-02_PierreMathiot_ISF'


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



Reference manual and web pages updates

Updated on 11/19/2018 18:44:05 by mathiot

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 12/01/2021 05:32:24 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 11/19/2019 20:54:53 by mathiot


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 12/05/2019 10:54:04 by mathiot

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

Last modified 2 years ago Last modified on 2020-01-06T11:20:59+01:00