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

add metadata for orbital parameters in cam_control_mod #325

Open
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: development
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

peverwhee
Copy link
Collaborator

Tag name (required for release branches):
Originator(s): peverwhee

Description (include the issue title, and the keyword ['closes', 'fixes', 'resolves'] followed by the issue number): Adds metadata for orbital parameters in cam_control_mod.F90

Describe any changes made to build system: N/A

Describe any changes made to the namelist: N/A

List any changes to the defaults for the input datasets (e.g. boundary datasets): N/A

List all files eliminated and why: N/A

List all files added and what they do:
A src/control/cam_control_mod.meta

  • add metadata file for cam_control_mod.F90

List all existing files that have been modified, and describe the changes:
(Helpful git command: git diff --name-status development...<your_branch_name>)
M src/control/cam_control_mod.F90

  • add necessary comments for CCPP parsing

M src/data/registry.xml

  • notify the registry of the new metadata file

If there are new failures (compared to the test/existing-test-failures.txt file),
have them OK'd by the gatekeeper, note them here, and add them to the file.
If there are baseline differences, include the test and the reason for the
diff. What is the nature of the change? Roundoff?

derecho/intel/aux_sima:

derecho/gnu/aux_sima:

If this changes climate describe any run(s) done to evaluate the new
climate in enough detail that it(they) could be reproduced:

CAM-SIMA date used for the baseline comparison tests if different than latest:

@peverwhee
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I took a stab at standard names, as there is nothing in the dictionary and we haven't decided on them as a group in the spreadsheet.

Copy link
Collaborator

@mattldawson mattldawson left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

looks great!

Comment on lines +6 to +7
name = cam_control_mod
type = module
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Should you go ahead and add aqua_planet and brnch_retain_casename to the module level variables with standard names as well right now? Just thinking ahead about how when these are needed by a physics package, they will be available.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I added the aqua planet flag. I don't currently see why the schemes would need to know the retain casename logical, but we can always add it if/when that comes up!

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The retain casename is currently used in the NUOPC cap interface in CAM. When @nusbaume does his review, perhaps he can weigh in on this.

src/control/cam_control_mod.meta Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
name = cam_control_mod
type = module
[ aqua_planet ]
standard_name = flag_for_aqua_planet_mode
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

A conversation starter for @nusbaume - There is one flag_for standard name and a bunch of do in the standard names repo. An alternate name could be do_aqua_planet

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

ooh i like do_aqua_planet better. I've changed it to that, but am happy to hear Jesse's feedback when he returns!

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