CCPP Framework Meeting Minutes 2024 06 27

Agenda

• GitHub issues/PRs
• New items
• Updates
• Other business
• notes

---

Attendees: Mike Kavulich,

GitHub issues/PRs

CCPP Framework (issues, PRs, discussions)

• Constituent updates PR#549

  • Waiting on https://github.com/ufs-community/ufs-weather-model/pull/2290
    • There has been a big to-do about this PR, several rounds of test failures due to staging data etc.
    • It seems like it's close to being merged, but it also seemed that way a week ago. Do we want to just pull the plug and create the develop branch and deal with merges/rebases later?

• Remove requirement that suite definition file names begin with "suite_" PR#569

  • PRs are open for SCM and UFS weather model/FV3
    • This one won't hold up creation of the develop branch

• Need mechanism to support equivalent units Issue#570

  • DRAFT TO DISCUSS: Add support and testing for equivalent units #571

• Add new "register" phase #572

• Implement new constituent property/field to track "above the top of model" values #573

Standard names (issues, PRs, discussions)

• Rename turbulent_kinetic_energy and change units #70

New items for discussion

• Creating develop branch?
  • Merge strategy?
    • I prefer "squash-and-merge" due to the easier-to-follow tracking of history, easier cherry-picking between branches

Updates from last time

Previous notes

Mike K is in the process of updating the "Development Workflow" wiki page. It's not done yet, but you're welcome to spy on my progress and raise objections to anything you see there.

Other business

• Issue backlog cleaning
  • Mike K hasn't had time to prepare anything, will try to find time to review old issues before next meeting.

Meeting notes

CCPP Framework

• Constituent updates
  • Test failures unrelated to framework stuff
    • Grant checked in - didn’t stage data correctly; seg fault from physics
      • Grant testing fix now
  • Jesse - where can we see status of tests?
    • Discussion on PR
  • If we can get it in by next week - CAM folks are ok with that
    • Dustin - hope we get it in before the 4th
  • Dom - removal of blocked data structures PR will be merged first
• Equivalent units
  • Prebuild needs a bit more logic
• Register phase
  • Not going into prebuild
• Grant - we should present the new features of capgen to the UFS developers
  • Dustin - has tried to mention lots of the new stuff; developers are a little resistant to handing over responsibility to the framework
    • Hopefully, in August, Dustin will have time to devote to integrating capgen into the SCM
  • Dom - should focus on:
    • Good & precise error handling
    • Concise output of what framework is doing (right now we get either nothing or 100000 lines of debug output)
      • Need to classify the messages we want to output when
• Above top of model constituent values
  • Chemistry needs, for example, the amount of ozone above the model top for low-top models
  • Dom - similar to LTP value in RRTMG
    • Dustin - everything that needs extra layers added - computed beforehand, then passed into radiation (w/ standard names), then passed back out
  • Jesse - can be combined with register phase
    • Register phase can specify the above model top is needed for radiatively-active quantities
  • For radiation, we will need more than one layer above the model top - something to keep in mind during design
  • Cheryl - issue in standard names about above model top?
    • JEDI issue - https://github.com/ESCOMP/CCPPStandardNames/issues/50

Standard Names

• Rename turbulent_kinetic_energy and change units
  • Will keep name as is (no “specific”), but change the units

Discussion

• Develop branch
  • Michael K working on development workflow draft
  • Merge strategy?
    • Michael K proposes “squash and merge”
      • Everyone agrees
      • We should configure the repo to default to squash
    • Commit message?
      • Michael W - would like consistency, clarity
      • Use PR description - can configure this in github
  • Dom - should not forbid regular merges
    • Ex: would want to retain history when merging back into release branch
    • Jesse - should update PR template/documentation to specify what we are doing