Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

corrections for intialization #8

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jun 12, 2020
Merged

corrections for intialization #8

merged 2 commits into from
Jun 12, 2020

Conversation

monsieuralok
Copy link

In these files I made modifications for initialization of variables and I have initialized everything to zero. Please check it as sometime they do need to be initialized to zero they might have some other value.

@monsieuralok monsieuralok marked this pull request as draft June 7, 2020 18:41
@monsieuralok monsieuralok marked this pull request as ready for review June 7, 2020 18:41
@monsieuralok monsieuralok marked this pull request as draft June 7, 2020 18:42
@monsieuralok
Copy link
Author

@oyvindseland @Kirkevag @tto061 @DirkOlivie please check this pull requesr

@monsieuralok monsieuralok marked this pull request as ready for review June 7, 2020 18:48
@monsieuralok monsieuralok marked this pull request as draft June 7, 2020 18:48
@monsieuralok monsieuralok marked this pull request as ready for review June 7, 2020 18:49
@DirkOlivie
Copy link

Hi Alok,
after these changes, were the test-results bit-identical?
Dirk

@monsieuralok
Copy link
Author

monsieuralok commented Jun 8, 2020

@DirkOlivie I have not tested results after all these bugs fixed. I tested bit-wise reproducibility in between and then, I tested results in-between with and without bugs only once. They were bit-identical. But, if @tto061 and Ada has made any these tests I am not aware as they were also doing some simulation. Also, I was always executing experiment where these emissions files are not merged and I executed two simulations of 100 years and not having a single mid-month crash. If it require let me know I will do.

@tto061 tto061 requested review from DirkOlivie, tto061, Kirkevag, oyvindseland and a team June 8, 2020 16:01
@tto061
Copy link

tto061 commented Jun 8, 2020

This is OK to go for me. Could reviewers please approve within the next couple of days if you can, and we can merge.

Copy link

@tto061 tto061 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I would suggest a review by Alf and Øyvind of the "clean-up" part of this request (the first commit).
To me it seems that the conditionals on micro_mg are necessary; and I not sure about deleting the commented code (might it be useful for future checks? is it the only code here that can be deleted? or would these deletions leave other dangling left-over code?)

Copy link

@Kirkevag Kirkevag left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I've looked over the changes, which seem ok mostly. Exceptions

  1. zm_conv.F90: I assume Thomas has control of the added code, wehich is not just initializion?
  2. pmxsub.F90. Two variables (vnbcarr and vaitbcarr), now initialized, are also calculated, but before they are used for the first time. This is therefore a bug: the effect of this bug concerns extra diagnostics of optics at RH=0% only (for AeroCom experiments): mixture 4 and 14 has not had the right volume fraction of BC for this particular RH. The loop over higher RH values are done after calculating vnbcarr and vaitbcarr, so that seems to be OK.

@Kirkevag
Copy link

Kirkevag commented Jun 9, 2020

I agree with Thomas, by the way, that the code commented out is best left as comments, for possible future use (even though it makes the code look messy).

@tto061
Copy link

tto061 commented Jun 9, 2020 via email

@Kirkevag
Copy link

Kirkevag commented Jun 9, 2020

I just did my duty as a code reviewer, Thomas, as requested. For the second part, which of course is due to bad coding, I have now made a new github issue for this: #9

@tto061
Copy link

tto061 commented Jun 9, 2020 via email

@tto061
Copy link

tto061 commented Jun 9, 2020

just to add, for the benefit of all those who do not understand the code in zm_conv.F90: that was EXACTLY an initialisation issue, nothing more, nothing else; just like the others (only this one had no effect on the calculations, and was caught be init=zero,arrays)

@tto061
Copy link

tto061 commented Jun 12, 2020

Can we merge the first commit only now? I am not sure how to do this, by the way -- the automatic merge will take both commits. Any ideas?

@MichaelSchulzMETNO
Copy link

MichaelSchulzMETNO commented Jun 12, 2020 via email

@oyvindseland
Copy link

I would imagine that you can also pick a specific commit from Alok's copy at the merging of the command line structure, but is there any specific reasons why you do not want both?

@tto061
Copy link

tto061 commented Jun 12, 2020 via email

@annefou
Copy link

annefou commented Jun 12, 2020

@MichaelSchulzMETNO That was the kind of things I was talking about (or trying to) during the CAM meeting; you can update user's PR to fix problems, cherry pick, etc. on behalf of the user (so that users are rewarded for their contribution and not the maintainer).

@tto061
Copy link

tto061 commented Jun 12, 2020

OK I will try and have a go

@tto061
Copy link

tto061 commented Jun 12, 2020

sorry, I tried. Now I'm fed up. I will use git again next month, maybe.

@MichaelSchulzMETNO
Copy link

MichaelSchulzMETNO commented Jun 12, 2020 via email

@tto061
Copy link

tto061 commented Jun 12, 2020 via email

@oyvindseland
Copy link

I will go back and do some git training inbetween the finishing up of the article so I can try as well but not until next week.

@MichaelSchulzMETNO MichaelSchulzMETNO merged commit 570a809 into NorESMhub:cam_cesm2_1_rel_05-Nor Jun 12, 2020
@MichaelSchulzMETNO
Copy link

I will merge, then revert one commit back and then we can pick the second commit later if all agree.

@tto061
Copy link

tto061 commented Jun 12, 2020 via email

@MichaelSchulzMETNO
Copy link

Might be good to test, if this is now working. I am not sure what this part

if(micro_mg_version <2) then call post_proc%add_field(p(nctncons), p(packed_nctncons))
call post_proc%add_field(p(nctncons), p(packed_nctncons)) call post_proc%add_field(p(nctnnbmn), p(packed_nctnnbmn))
call post_proc%add_field(p(nctnnbmn), p(packed_nctnnbmn))
ENDIF

really was for.

Why did Alok introduce it in the first place? hmm

@tto061
Copy link

tto061 commented Jun 12, 2020 via email

gold2718 pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 28, 2023
Update cam_development branch
gold2718 pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 28, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
Archived in project
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants