Version 8 (modified by clevy, 21 months ago) (diff)

Name and subject of the action

Last edition: 11/27/20 17:20:13 by emalod

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.

  1. Summary
  2. Preview
  3. Tests
  4. Review


Action OASIS_TESTCASE : create a test case for coupling with OASIS
PI(S) Claire Lévy
Digest Motivations and main tasks: create a simple testcase using OASIS to help building new coupled configurations
Dependencies OASIS
Branch source:/NEMO/branches/{YEAR}/dev_r{REV}_{ACTION_NAME}
Previewer(s) E. Maisonnave & Laure Coquart
Reviewer(s) E. Maisonnave & Laure Coquart
Ticket #2379


Create a simple testcase using OASIS to help building new coupled configurations.
Will use OASIS and a simplified fake atmosphere (TOY_ATM in OASIS wording.
May do more than only ocean-atmosphere coupling (to be discussed).
Useful as coupling demonstrator and for first level valisation of coupling with OASIS in future NEMO versions.


As for the test case defined in STEP1 (see below):

  • no changes in NEMO code
  • Changes in &namsbc_cpl namelist
  • Need to add the TOY_ATM software, as a simplified /fake atmosphere somewhere to be able tu run this test case

Documentation updates

Updates needed:


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 the request to the previewer(s).
Then an iterative process should take place between PI and previewer(s) in order to find a consensus

Possible bottlenecks:

  • the methodology
  • the flowchart and list of routines to be changed
  • the new list of variables wrt coding rules
  • the summary of updates in literature

Once an agreement has been reached, preview is ended and the PI can start the development into his branch.


STEP 1: Implement in the up-to-date version for 2020 the test case developed in 2018

Restarting from /ccc/work/cont003/gen7451/clevy/VALID_CPL_4.0/trunk/cfgs/CPL_TOYATM in irene computer, implment the CPL_TOYATM in the up-to-date NEMO version, as a test case (in trunk/tests).

CPL_TOYATM test case description:

  • Based on the ORCA2_ICE_PISCES reference configuration, activate coupling to a TOYATM (kindly offered by Eric M.) through OASIS
  • coupled fields (from &namsbc_cpl namelist):
&namsbc_cpl    !   coupled ocean/atmosphere model                       ("key_oasis3")
   nn_cplmodel   =     1   !  Maximum number of models to/from which NEMO is potentially sending/receiving data
   ln_usecplmask = .false. !  use a coupling mask file to merge data received from several models
   !                       !   -> file with the float variable called cplmask (jpi,jpj,nn_cplmodel)
   nn_cats_cpl   =     5   !  Number of sea ice categories over which coupling is to be carried out (if not 1)

   !             !        description       !  multiple  !    vector   !       vector         ! vector !
   !             !                          ! categories !  reference  !     orientation      ! grids  !
!***   send    ***
   sn_snd_temp   =   'weighted oce and ice' ,    'no'    ,     ''      ,         ''           ,   ''
!***  receive  ***

   sn_rcv_qsr    =   'conservative'         ,    'no'    ,     ''      ,         ''           ,   ''
   sn_rcv_qns    =   'oce and ice'          ,    'no'    ,     ''      ,         ''           ,   ''
   sn_rcv_emp    =   'conservative'         ,    'no'    ,     ''      ,         ''           ,   ''
  • The test cases needs OASIS and a simple TOYATM
  • Where should the TOYATM be installed? In the test case, in NEMO tools? elsewhere?
  • Validation of the test case remains to be defined more precisely (check OASIS output compared to ocean SST ?)

STEP 2: is this the final version of the expected test case?

  • Adding other couplings?
  • Checking sea-ice?

STEP 3: implement final test case

Implement the finalised test case as part of the usual validation testbed, and also in the github for NEMO test cases

Answer from reviewers is in the ticket #2379. For E. Maisonnave & L. Coquart, review is successful and development can start


Once the development is done, the PI should complete the tests section below and after ask the reviewers to start their review.

This part should contain the detailed results of SETTE tests (restartability and reproducibility for each of the reference configuration) and detailed results of restartability and reproducibility when the option is activated on specified configurations used for this test

Regular checks:

  • Can this change be shown to produce expected impact (option activated)?
  • Can this change be shown to have a null impact (option not activated)?
  • 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 impact as expected 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?


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


  • 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 development documented with sufficient details for others to understand the impact of the change?
  • Is the project literature (manual, guide, web, …) now updated or completed following the proposed summary in preview section?


Is the review fully successful? If not, please indicate what is still missing

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