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

exterminate cable_data #450

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Nov 21, 2024
Merged

exterminate cable_data #450

merged 4 commits into from
Nov 21, 2024

Conversation

JhanSrbinovsky
Copy link
Collaborator

@JhanSrbinovsky JhanSrbinovsky commented Oct 30, 2024

CABLE

Thank you for submitting a pull request to the CABLE Project.

Description

Get rid of cable_data from ESM1.5 model

Fixes #448

Type of change

Please delete options that are not relevant.

Remove redundant code

Checklist

  • The new content is accessible and located in the appropriate section.
  • I have checked that links are valid and point to the intended content.
  • I have checked my code/text and corrected any misspellings

Rachel, can you please test this in your ESM1.5 setup. Mine is not at hand. It won't affect offline.


📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://cable--450.org.readthedocs.build/en/450/

@JhanSrbinovsky JhanSrbinovsky linked an issue Oct 30, 2024 that may be closed by this pull request
Copy link
Contributor

@rml599gh rml599gh left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

In cable_cbm.F90 can line 40-41 be removed since we will no longer be using 'C'?

In cable_explicit_driver.F90 - does the new line 91-93 (making CAPP) available need to be here or should it be in the cable_expl_unpack subroutine as that seems to be where it is used?

In cable_implicit_driver.F90: USE cable_phys_constants_mod, only: TFRZ has been added in both the cable_implict_driver subroutine and the implicit_unpack subroutine. As far as I can see tfrz is only used in implicit_unpack, so does the USE statement need to be in both subroutines?

In cable_um_init_subrs.F90:
Is TFRZ used in subroutine initialize_radiation? If not, then presumably don't need line 494.
Also in subrouting initialize_soilsnow, I can't see where TFRZ is used so perhaps line 642 is not needed.

Aside from these code queries, can you report on some testing to show impact (hopefully none) of the changes.

@JhanSrbinovsky
Copy link
Collaborator Author

code changes all made. I'll have to setup an ESM1.5 build/run w the current main CABLE and then a 2nd with this branch

@JhanSrbinovsky JhanSrbinovsky added the priority:high High priority issues that should be included in the next release. label Nov 6, 2024
@JhanSrbinovsky JhanSrbinovsky added this to the ESM1.6 FastTrack milestone Nov 6, 2024
@JhanSrbinovsky JhanSrbinovsky self-assigned this Nov 6, 2024
@JhanSrbinovsky
Copy link
Collaborator Author

ESM1.5+CABLE3, the one with CABLE:main branch in place, Comparing main@HEAD with #448 show global Temp fields after one year to be identical.
Screenshot 2024-11-18 at 3 47 05 pm

@JhanSrbinovsky
Copy link
Collaborator Author

JhanSrbinovsky commented Nov 18, 2024

benchcab shows regression tests all successful.

benchmark_cable_qsub.sh.o128905123.txt

@JhanSrbinovsky
Copy link
Collaborator Author

oddly - I did the ESM1.5 set first. My expectation was that there is no way offline is going to be impacted. For thoroughness I did the offline benchcab thing, ALL regression tests failed. Then I thought to re-base #448, and it worked. The suggestion being that something in offline/ changed in the interim.

@JhanSrbinovsky
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@ccarouge - can you look at this please, it looks like problem is on within action end, local build works fine. here it doesnt even get that far

@JhanSrbinovsky
Copy link
Collaborator Author

JhanSrbinovsky commented Nov 19, 2024

remove met%tk issue was merged earlier today - after the automatic build fail. Since todays merge and conflict arose , this has been resolved, but the auto-build test still fails. @ccarouge, this builds with build.bash and benchcab. something is going on with action here, nonetheless I dont want to merge until is worked out

@JhanSrbinovsky JhanSrbinovsky merged commit babfe01 into main Nov 21, 2024
7 checks passed
@JhanSrbinovsky JhanSrbinovsky deleted the 448-remove-cable_data branch November 21, 2024 06:09
@JhanSrbinovsky
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@ccarouge IDK what changed but it worked after being re-run. No changes on code side.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
priority:high High priority issues that should be included in the next release.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

remove cable_data and instance USEing it
2 participants