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

Fix line277 check icond.f90 #503

Closed

Conversation

iamhappytoo
Copy link
Contributor

Make sure all the relevant boxes are checked (and only check the box if you actually completed the step):

  • closes #xxx (identify the issue associated with this PR)
  • tests passed
  • new tests added
  • science test figures
  • checked that the new code conforms to the SUMMA coding conventions
  • ReleaseNotes entry

Changed line 277 part "(a,1x,i0)" to "(a,1x,i0,a,f5.3,a,f5.3)" to print out error correctly.
@iamhappytoo
Copy link
Contributor Author

changed part "(a,1x,i0)" to "(a,1x,i0,a,f5.3,a,f5.3)" in check_icond.f90 line 277 to print out error correctly.

@wknoben
Copy link
Collaborator

wknoben commented Mar 1, 2022

Thanks for the PR! Could you please address the following small points?

  1. Could you add a brief description (in a comment here) of what happens before your fix, and what happens after?
  2. Could you clean up the commits, so that the only commit listed is the one the actually changed the file? The one that says "merge pull request 1 from [...]" should not be in the list.
  3. Could you add a brief mention of your fix to the Release Notes document? You can find this file as part of your SUMMA repo, under ./summa/docs/whats-new.md

@wknoben wknoben self-requested a review March 1, 2022 17:46
@iamhappytoo
Copy link
Contributor Author

Before the fix, summa initial condition check (check_icond.f90) error print format does not comply with the transferred input, failed to print out the error message, with the warning: "Fortran runtime error: Expected INTEGER for item 4 in formatted transfer, got REAL"
After the fix, summa can successfully print out the error message.

@iamhappytoo
Copy link
Contributor Author

iamhappytoo commented Mar 2, 2022 via email

@andywood
Copy link
Collaborator

andywood commented Mar 2, 2022 via email

@wknoben
Copy link
Collaborator

wknoben commented Mar 14, 2022

@andywood I agree that it may make sense to separate larger and smaller changes, but I'm currently coming up blank when it comes to a way to distinguish between the two. It seems mostly intuitive to me whether a change is one or the other.

I think at the very least we can update the PR template to be a bit more explicit about how to add a ReleaseNotes entry (I'll do that in a moment). Perhaps that way we can at least track all changes without a lot of hassle and sort them into major/minor when we do a new release?

@andywood
Copy link
Collaborator

andywood commented Mar 14, 2022 via email

@wknoben
Copy link
Collaborator

wknoben commented Mar 14, 2022

@andywood I see. I opened a new PR along these lines #505
Could you have a look to see if this is what you had in mind?

@wknoben
Copy link
Collaborator

wknoben commented Mar 15, 2022

Closing this now because we have a new PR for the original issue, and the resulting discussion about tracking changes the code in a document has been resolved in #505

@wknoben wknoben closed this Mar 15, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants