b4b-dev: Fix FATES electron transport variable being set prior to passing to FATES #3063
+14
−4
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
glemieux
changed the title
glemieux
added
FATES
ekluzek
changed the title
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description of changes
This fixes #3062.
It also fixes an occurrence of a possible silent bug (see #3066) in which the
fates_electron_transport_modelwas not being included into the lnd_in file due to the namelist definitiongroupvalue being incorrectly spelled.This also adds a new testmod to exercise the non-default option for the FATES electron transport namelist option. currently runs, but we result in a diff once NGEET/fates#1350 is integrated and the fates tag is updated with CTSM.
Specific notes
Contributors other than yourself, if any: @rgknox
CTSM Issues Fixed (include github issue #): #3062
Are answers expected to change (and if so in what way)? No, B4B
Any User Interface Changes (namelist or namelist defaults changes)?
Does this create a need to change or add documentation? Did you do so? No
Testing performed, if any:
(List what testing you did to show your changes worked as expected)
(This can be manual testing or running of the different test suites)
(Documentation on system testing is here: https://github.com/ESCOMP/ctsm/wiki/System-Testing-Guide)
(aux_clm on derecho for intel/gnu and izumi for intel/gnu/nag/nvhpc is the standard for tags on master)
NOTE: Be sure to check your coding style against the standard
(https://github.com/ESCOMP/ctsm/wiki/CTSM-coding-guidelines) and review
the list of common problems to watch out for
(https://github.com/ESCOMP/CTSM/wiki/List-of-common-problems).