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

Addition of clm6_0 physics option #2417

Merged
merged 42 commits into from
Apr 9, 2024
Merged

Conversation

ekluzek
Copy link
Collaborator

@ekluzek ekluzek commented Mar 9, 2024

Description of changes

Add clm6_0 as an option for CLM_PHYSICS_VERSION. Copy clm5_1 namelist settings
to clm6_0. Move clm5_1 compsets and testing to clm6_0 with just a couple for testing
until CESM and CAM move from clm5_1 to clm6_0.

This will be the last or at least one of the last tags in the ctsm5.2.mksurfdata branch
series, so will also make sure the mksurfdata_esmf README files and such are in good
shape and usable, as well as starting the ChangeLog/ChangeSum for the final ctsm5.2.0
tag.

We also need to get the python tools testing clean. Currently lint doesn't pass, and there is
a failing python sys test.

Specific notes

Contributors other than yourself, if any:

CTSM Issues Fixed (include github issue #):
Fixes #2378
Fixes #2418
Fixes #1719

Are answers expected to change (and if so in what way)? no

Any User Interface Changes (namelist or namelist defaults changes)?
Addition of clm6_0 physics option and compsets
Removal of most clm5_1 tests and compsets (only a few left until CAM and CESM remove it's use)

Testing performed, if any: will do standard testing when finished testing all test lists

…ke namelists it needs clm5_1 and clm6_0, and others like most of the testing the Clm60 just replace Clm51
@ekluzek ekluzek added the enhancement new capability or improved behavior of existing capability label Mar 9, 2024
@ekluzek ekluzek added this to the ctsm5.2.0 milestone Mar 9, 2024
@ekluzek ekluzek requested a review from slevis-lmwg March 9, 2024 19:08
@ekluzek ekluzek self-assigned this Mar 9, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

@slevis-lmwg slevis-lmwg left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@ekluzek I could approve this after a couple of corrections that I think are necessary; however, I suggest that we also meet for 30 minutes or so to go over other thoughts/questions/suggestions.

bld/namelist_files/namelist_defaults_ctsm.xml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
bld/namelist_files/namelist_defaults_ctsm.xml Show resolved Hide resolved
bld/namelist_files/namelist_defaults_ctsm.xml Show resolved Hide resolved
cime_config/testdefs/testlist_clm.xml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
…of an old dataset that is no longer used. It was no longer used in mksurfdata_map either but it was in place. Hence why it was kept here. So I've removed it now
…to read now and makes it shorter. Update the build-namelist unit tester and show that the clm4_5, clm5_0, and clm5_1 tests are all identical
@ekluzek
Copy link
Collaborator Author

ekluzek commented Mar 20, 2024

My earlier comment was in the wrong PR, so moving it to the right one and deleting it here.

Update to ctsm5.1.dev174

Update to newer tag. Which also includes an externals
update which broke the build/run of mksurfdata_esmf.
As a result I added some additional unit-testing in
order to detect this sort of thing sooner.

 Conflicts:
	bld/namelist_files/namelist_defaults_ctsm.xml
	bld/unit_testers/build-namelist_test.pl
Merge up to ctsm5.1.dev175

Merge up to ctsm5.1.dev175 and do standard aux_clm testing.

 Conflicts:
	bld/unit_testers/build-namelist_test.pl
tools/mksurfdata_esmf/README Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Contributor

@slevis-lmwg slevis-lmwg left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@ekluzek thank you for asking. Here are two comments on the README modifications.

tools/mksurfdata_esmf/README Show resolved Hide resolved
tools/mksurfdata_esmf/README Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Remove nvhpc test from ctsm_sci since not
passing. Keep the one expected fail for nvhpc. Change the Expected fails
for Clm51 to Clm60. Remove the mpasa3p75
test as it's experimental and requires a huge
number of processors.
…jobscript so the test case is completely self-contained
Move the ne30 tests that were in the
cesm3_dev test list to the aux_clm.
And remove the cesm3_dev testlist.
…and aux_cime_baselines tests are run in aux_clm
@ekluzek ekluzek requested a review from slevis-lmwg April 9, 2024 01:00
@ekluzek ekluzek merged commit af3c7fb into ESCOMP:ctsm5.2.mksurfdata Apr 9, 2024
2 checks passed
@ekluzek ekluzek deleted the addclm60 branch April 9, 2024 01:02
Copy link
Contributor

@slevis-lmwg slevis-lmwg left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@ekluzek thank you for the detailed effort that you put into this work!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement new capability or improved behavior of existing capability
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants