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

Bringing the PPE mods to master via b4b-dev #2689

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Aug 19, 2024

Conversation

slevis-lmwg
Copy link
Contributor

@slevis-lmwg slevis-lmwg commented Aug 14, 2024

Description of changes

Initially bringing the diffs between branch_tags/PPE16... and branch_tags/PPE15... to b4b-dev manually.

TODOs listed in these cards:
https://github.com/orgs/ESCOMP/projects/39/views/1?pane=issue&itemId=73918053 DONE
https://github.com/orgs/ESCOMP/projects/39/views/1?pane=issue&itemId=73918054 DONE

Specific notes

Contributors other than yourself, if any:
@linniahawkins @ekluzek @olyson

CTSM Issues Fixed (include github issue #):
Fixes #2567
Fixes #1652

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

Any User Interface Changes (namelist or namelist defaults changes)?
New params files

Does this create a need to change or add documentation? Did you do so?

Testing performed, if any:
Ran aux_clm on branch_tags/PPE16... and branch_tags/PPE15... successfully as documented in #2567

Bringing the diffs between branch_tags/PPE16... and branch_tags/PPE15...
to b4b-dev manually
@slevis-lmwg slevis-lmwg self-assigned this Aug 14, 2024
@slevis-lmwg slevis-lmwg added priority: high High priority to fix/merge soon, e.g., because it is a problem in important configurations PR status: work in progress bfb bit-for-bit labels Aug 14, 2024
Copy link
Collaborator

@ekluzek ekluzek left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Code changes look great. And it looks like you removed commented out code and uneeded comments which is great.

Marking as approved, although as already noted the parameter files need to be updated with the new fields.

@ekluzek
Copy link
Collaborator

ekluzek commented Aug 15, 2024

@linniahawkins this is the one last bit we think we need for the PPE work (in terms of the CTSM code).

@slevis-lmwg
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thank you @ekluzek

I also asked @olyson for a review in case he has code that I still need to bring in here (based on our discussion yesterday).

@slevis-lmwg slevis-lmwg linked an issue Aug 15, 2024 that may be closed by this pull request
Copy link
Contributor

@olyson olyson left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I compared these four files against what I had in /glade/work/oleson/PPE.n11_ctsm5.1.dev030_djk2120, which contains the code modifications that @djk2120 and I had. It looks like those modifications agree with what is shown here in this PR.
I do have one question, probably for @djk2120 . In my/Daniels code modifications, there are changes to src/biogeophys/SoilStateInitTimeConstMod.F90 that are not here in this PR or on master. For example, this comment and associated code changes are deleted in my/Daniel's version, but are still in master:

This is separated into sections for non-perturbation and perturbation of sand/clay because the perturbation code is not bfb when sand_pf=clay_pf=0. This occurs because of a divide and then a multiply in the code.

I'm not sure if this was changed later on or not. @djk2120 , do you remember?

@olyson
Copy link
Contributor

olyson commented Aug 15, 2024

Ok, so the SoilStateInitTimeConstMod.F90 code Linnia is currently using (/glade/work/linnia/PPEn14trans) agrees with what's in this PR and in master, so maybe this is ok as is.

@slevis-lmwg
Copy link
Contributor Author

...and from this morning's email thread I gather that the param file updates that I made are good:

  • I ncdump-ed the latest param files (dated c240208)
  • I added mods from /glade/campaign/cgd/tss/people/oleson/modify_param/c*_params.c210507_kwo.c220322.nc
  • I ncgen-ed new files (dated c240814)

@slevis-lmwg
Copy link
Contributor Author

slevis-lmwg commented Aug 15, 2024

I submitted ./run_sys_tests -s aux_clm -c ctsm5.2.015 --skip-generate

  • izumi OK (1 test still PEND)
  • derecho OK (3 "unexpected" tests that differ from the baseline match the failures reported here

@slevis-lmwg
Copy link
Contributor Author

Based on the test results, this is ready.
b4b-dev is locked at the moment, so this PR will wait for the next b4b-dev cycle.

@slevis-lmwg slevis-lmwg added PR status: ready PR: this is ready to merge in, with all tests satisfactory and reviews complete and removed PR status: work in progress labels Aug 16, 2024
@wwieder
Copy link
Contributor

wwieder commented Aug 16, 2024

Thanks @slevis-lmwg. If testing hasn't started on the locked b4b branch is there harm in unlocking b4b to bring this in sooner? Not sure if this breaks the spirit of b4b dev or helps us out much, but thought I'd ask

@slevis-lmwg
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thanks @slevis-lmwg. If testing hasn't started on the locked b4b branch is there harm in unlocking b4b to bring this in sooner? Not sure if this breaks the spirit of b4b dev or helps us out much, but thought I'd ask

Worth asking @wwieder.
I will defer to @samsrabin who is in charge of merging b4b-dev to master this time around.

@samsrabin
Copy link
Collaborator

The testing is unfortunately well under way by now. I have one problematic test, though, and if I can't get it to work I might have to delay the b4b-dev merge. I'll keep you updated.

@samsrabin
Copy link
Collaborator

Nope, I got it done. b4b-dev merge will continue.

@slevis-lmwg
Copy link
Contributor Author

This step DONE

./rimport -file lnd/clm2/paramdata/clm45_params.c240814.nc 
./rimport -file lnd/clm2/paramdata/clm50_params.c240814.nc 
./rimport -file lnd/clm2/paramdata/ctsm51_params.c240814.nc 
./rimport -file lnd/clm2/paramdata/ctsm51_ciso_cwd_hr_params.c240814.nc
./rimport -file lnd/clm2/paramdata/ctsm60_params.c240814.nc 
./rimport -file lnd/clm2/paramdata/ctsm60_params_cn30.c240814.nc 

Next step: Merge into b4b-dev.

@slevis-lmwg
Copy link
Contributor Author

slevis-lmwg commented Aug 16, 2024

OK ./build-namelist_test.pl: 451/3339 < FAIL> <Test Id: 451> <Desc: LeungDust_WO_Prigent> I saw a thread between @samsrabin and @ekluzek confirming that this is expected to fail, but I can't locate the thread now...

./run_sys_tests -s aux_clm -c ctsm5.2.023 --skip-generate
OK izumi
OK derecho: This is the only unexpected failure I get from ./cs.status.fails | grep -v PASS | grep -v NLCOMP
REP_P64x2_Lm13.f10_f10_mg37.IHistClm60Bgc.derecho_intel.clm-monthly--clm-matrixcnOn_ignore_warnings BASELINE ctsm5.2.023: DIFF which matches the results here and, therefore, is ok.

@slevis-lmwg slevis-lmwg marked this pull request as ready for review August 16, 2024 22:13
@slevis-lmwg slevis-lmwg merged commit 1ef04e9 into ESCOMP:b4b-dev Aug 19, 2024
2 checks passed
@olyson
Copy link
Contributor

olyson commented Sep 20, 2024

Reviewing the original PPE spinup and historical simulation in preparation for a new spinup (issue #70 in LMWG_dev), I'm seeing two code modifications that are not appearing in ctsm5.2.028. These were in the last PPE branch tag (branch_tags/PPE.n16_ctsm5.1.dev030) in CanopyFluxesMod.F90 and CNVegStructUpdateMod.F90, but are not in ctsm5.2.028.

@wwieder
Copy link
Contributor

wwieder commented Sep 20, 2024

Thank for checking this, Keith. I'll let others weigh in on the details here, but appreciate your careful eye

@olyson
Copy link
Contributor

olyson commented Sep 20, 2024

I guess my comment above about CanopyFluxesMod.F90 and CNVegStructUpdateMod.F90 doesn't really belong in this PR, since this one deals with the bfb part of the the PPE branch. I'll make my comment in Issue #2567 .

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bfb bit-for-bit PR status: ready PR: this is ready to merge in, with all tests satisfactory and reviews complete priority: high High priority to fix/merge soon, e.g., because it is a problem in important configurations
Projects
Status: Done (non release/external)
Status: Done
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

CTSM PPE prep work
5 participants