Version 2 (modified by clevy, 22 months ago) (diff)

Name and subject of the action

Last edition: 04/23/20 10:18:09 by clevy

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 Update trusting tool to enbale it for the up-to-dae NEMO version
PI(S) Claire Lévy
Digest Trusting tool allows regular and automatic verification and validation, as first set up for continuous integration
Dependencies NEMO code, target computer
Branch source:/NEMO/branches/{YEAR}/dev_r{REV}_{ACTION_NAME}
Previewer(s) Names
Reviewer(s) Names
Ticket #XXXX


Describe the goal of development and the methodology,
add reference documents or publications if relevant.

IMMERSE is expected to improve NEMO development process beyond state-of-the art through the extension of NEMO testing suite with a continuous integration service. Following most recent best practices in software development, this tasks aims at deploying a continuous integration service that will be triggered as often as needed, allowing a functional and scientific verification of code results. The service will allow to perform tests routinely on various selected configurations (code branch, testing scope, compiler, compilation options, HPC centers, …).
This action is a contribution to IMMERSE delivrable D2.1: Continuous integration service NEMO deployed on NEMO repository.

The so-called trusting tool has been developped by Nicolas Martin in 2015. As an insight on the functionalities of this tool, it was producding the following web pages (with two different options below):

This action will re-install the trusting tool to make it fonctionnal for the most recent NEMO releases.
Once this done, hopefully on a few centers/target computers to check partability, this action should also allow to easily add new configurations or test cases to the trusting process.

Starting point for the development


Describe flow chart of the changes in the code.
List the Fortran modules and subroutines to be created/edited/deleted.
Detailed list of new variables to be defined (including namelists),
give for each the chosen name and description wrt coding rules.

Documentation updates

Using previous parts, define the main changes to be done in the NEMO literature (manuals, guide, web pages, …).


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.


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.