Changes between Version 1 and Version 2 of ticket/1495_UKMO_ISF
- Timestamp:
- 2015-03-18T12:18:53+01:00 (8 years ago)
Legend:
- Unmodified
- Added
- Removed
- Modified
-
ticket/1495_UKMO_ISF
v1 v2 1 [[PageOutline]] 1 2 Last edited [[Timestamp]] 2 3 3 [[ PageOutline]]4 [[BR]] 4 5 5 == For completion by the Sci/Tech/Code reviewer == 6 '''Reviewer:''' [ Enter your name here ] 6 '''Author''' : Pierre Mathiot 7 7 8 === Ticket Details, Documentation and Code changes === 9 ||Do you understand the area of code being altered and the reasoning why it is being altered?||YES/NO|| 10 ||Do the proposed code changes correspond with the stated reason for the change?||YES/NO|| 11 ||Is the in-line documentation accurate and sufficient?||YES/NO|| 12 ||Do the code changes comply with NEMO coding standards?||YES/NO|| 13 ||Is the Ticket documented with sufficient detail for others to understand the impact of the change?||YES/NO|| 14 ||Does any corresponding external documentation require updating?||YES/NO|| 15 ||If yes, which docs and have the updates been drafted?||YES/NO|| 16 ||Are namelist changes required for this change?||YES/NO|| 17 ||If yes, have they been done?||YES/NO|| 18 ||Has a completed Ticket Summary template been appended to the ticket to aid code reviews||YES/NO|| 19 ||Does this summary correspond with your understanding of the full ticket?||YES/NO|| 8 '''ticket''' : #1495 20 9 21 Ticket, Documentation and Code comments 10 '''Branch''' : [https://forge.ipsl.jussieu.fr/nemo/browser/branches/dev_r5151_UKMO_ISF dev_r5151_UKMO_ISF ] 11 ---- 22 12 23 Add specific Ticket, Documentation and code comments here 13 === Description === 14 * Improvement of zgr_isf: one block change coastline every where. 15 * Improvement of sbc_isf: CALL statement in a 2d loop 16 * Improvement of zpshde_isf: too much variable compute, can we used less ? 17 * Improvement of hpg_isf: can we used one as simple as for the bottom ? 18 ---- 19 === Testing === 20 Testing could consider (where appropriate) other configurations in addition to NVTK]. 24 21 25 === Testing === 26 ||Has the NVTK and other jobs been tested with this change?||YES/NO|| 27 ||Have the required bit comparability tests been run?||YES/NO|| 28 ||Can this change be shown to have a null impact? (if option not selected)||YES/NO|| 29 ||If no, is reason for the change valid/understood?||YES/NO/NA|| 30 ||If no, ensure that the ticket details the impact this change will have on model configurations .||YES/NO/NA|| 31 ||Is this change expected to preserve all diagnostics?||YES/NO|| 32 ||If no, is reason for the change valid/understood?||YES/NO/NA|| 33 ||Are there significant changes in run time/memory?||YES/NO|| 22 ||NVTK Tested||!'''YES/NO!'''|| 23 ||Other model configurations||!'''YES/NO!'''|| 24 ||Processor configurations tested||[ Enter processor configs tested here ]|| 25 ||If adding new functionality please confirm that the [[BR]]New code doesn't change results when it is switched off [[BR]]and !''works!'' when switched on||!'''YES/NO/NA!'''|| 34 26 35 Testing Comments 27 (Answering UNSURE is likely to generate further questions from reviewers.) 36 28 37 Add specific testing comments here 29 'Please add further summary details here' 38 30 39 Add specific testing comments here 31 * Processor configurations tested 32 * etc---- 40 33 41 === Code Review === 42 ||Do the code changes comply with NEMO coding standards?||YES/NO|| 43 ||Are code changes consistent with the design of NEMO?||YES/NO|| 44 ||Is the code free of unwanted TABs?||YES/NO|| 45 ||Has the code been wholly (100%) produced by NEMO developers working on NEMO?||YES/NO|| 46 ||If no, ensure collaboration agreement has been added to the ticket keywords|||| 34 === Bit Comparability === 35 ||Does this change preserve answers in your tested standard configurations (to the last bit) ?||!'''YES/NO !'''|| 36 ||Does this change bit compare across various processor configurations. (1xM, Nx1 and MxN are recommended)||!'''YES/NO!'''|| 37 ||Is this change expected to preserve answers in all possible model configurations?||!'''YES/NO!'''|| 38 ||Is this change expected to preserve all diagnostics? [[BR]]!,,!''Preserving answers in model runs does not necessarily imply preserved diagnostics. !''||!'''YES/NO!'''|| 47 39 48 Add specific code comments or suggested alterations here. 40 If you answered !'''NO!''' to any of the above, please provide further details: 49 41 50 === Review Summary === 51 Add summary here 42 * Which routine(s) are causing the difference? 43 * Why the changes are not protected by a logical switch or new section-version 44 * What is needed to achieve regression with the previous model release (e.g. a regression branch, hand-edits etc). If this is not possible, explain why not. 45 * What do you expect to see occur in the test harness jobs? 46 * Which diagnostics have you altered and why have they changed?Please add details here........ 52 47 53 === Approval for the trunk === 54 YES/NO 48 ---- 49 === System Changes === 50 ||Does your change alter namelists?||!'''YES/NO !'''|| 51 ||Does your change require a change in compiler options?||!'''YES/NO !'''|| 55 52 56 The code reviewer may approve the change for the NEMO trunk when: 53 If any of these apply, please document the changes required here....... 57 54 58 1. their requests/comments have been addressed satisfactorily. 59 1. the above check-list has been completed. 55 ---- 56 === Resources === 57 !''Please !''summarize!'' any changes in runtime or memory use caused by this change......!'' 60 58 61 or the code reviewer may choose to reject & assign the change back to the code author. 59 ---- 60 === IPR issues === 61 ||Has the code been wholly (100%) produced by NEMO developers staff working exclusively on NEMO?||!'''YES/ NO !'''|| 62 63 If No: 64 65 * Identify the collaboration agreement details 66 * Ensure the code routine header is in accordance with the agreement, (Copyright/Redistribution etc).Add further details here if required..........
