-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 129
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
Recipe test results for v2.10 #3463
Comments
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
great stuff, folks! Here's me looking at the odd 17 ones that died of unnatural causes, of various reasons (not data or diag):
|
recipe_psyplot fails due to an issue of |
good find @schlunma 🍺 Our env is getting somewhat rather old, we need that Py312 support sooner than later (working on it for Core, stuck at |
lauer22_Fig5_lifrac fails to realize data from a (240, 91, 360, 720) array with dtype('float64') - needs be run on a hefty memory node |
a lot of those 17 recipes, that failed with other reasons, simply die out - all goes fine until they just stop in their tracks - any info from the SLURM logs? It looks to me like they were just run on an interactive node and the user timed out, with the system killing the session, and implicitly, the running process |
@schlunma I pulled this in, but it is giving me these issues:
and
with |
@axel-lauer Could you please copy the file |
The remaining NCL problems are due to a double guessing of the output filename. I think I fixed it locally, will commit soon. |
The NCL fix is in #3474. |
can one of you pls have a look at Julia? I want to close (and will close) #3287 since the Julia looks is the only thing outstanding there (even so, it has an issue to it) |
The issue with recipe_julia.yml is still open, I suspect it doesn't correctly handle fill values since the scale is at 1e20. |
lemme have a look at Julia then 😁 |
ahaa! Figured out Julia! |
Recipe running session 2023-12-14I did a re-run of all recipes affected by late changes (i.e. all NCL recipes and a few other recipes with bug/data fixes). Recipes that ran successfully (53 out of 155)
Recipes that failed because the diagnostic script failed (1 out of 155)
Recipes that failed because the run took too long (8 out of 155)
Recipes that failed because they used too much memory (1 out of 155)
Recipes that failed with HDF5 errors (3 out of 155)
|
Done. |
Some conclusions based on the above:
|
Is the output of these tests available somewhere? |
Hm. I yesterday ran successfully two of the HDF5 problematic recipes (collins and tebaldi). I also ran successfully wenzel16jclim, though wenzel14jgr continues to fail also for me. |
I have not uploaded it yet, but you can access it on Levante: |
Here is the HDF error if anyone is interested:
stderr:
|
Thanks, running them again now.. |
there is I/O toestepping going on - this is a fairly common HDF5 barf if the file is already opened by a process while another process is trying to open and read it/write to it - see eg h5py/h5py#1066 and a bunch of other people complaining about it since years ago. We need to understand what process opens the file and what other process is trying to do the same, but I think that's probably just on SLURM and that's not gonna be a straightforward task. At least, I'd be up for it but not today, and not before Xmas 🎄 |
Good news, all NCL recipes with diag failures except for
Since both maintainers of this recipe are not really active anymore, I suggest we flag this recipe as broken. @ESMValGroup/esmvaltool-coreteam opinions? |
It would be good, to get it running again, but I guess not worth/possible for the current release (since the missing figures were unnoticed/unreported for quite some time now). |
Here are the results from the comparison with v2.9. |
Here is a summary of the comparison results (full comparison is here). @ESMValGroup/esmvaltool-recipe-maintainers and @ESMValGroup/esmvaltool-coreteam If you have a bit of time, please check if the output of these recipes is still correct. Tick the box and add your name behind a recipe once you've checked. Runs with v2.10: https://esmvaltool.dkrz.de/shared/esmvaltool/v2.10.0/ The recipes where plots are different are probably the most important to check because if the data are different but the plots still look the same the changes are probably not significant. Maybe we can refine the thresholds for when data is reported as different for a future version of the comparison tool. Plots and data are different
Only plots are different
Only data are differentComparison is done using numpy.allclose with the default tolerances for floating point numbers and numpy.array_equal for other data types.
Results are the same as v2.9
Unable to compare because no reference run for v2.9
|
Is it possible to see the result/log of the comparison tool? Visually I don't find any difference in the figures of recipe_martin18grl.yml, but is has a lot of Figures, so I might have missed it. |
Yes, they are posted in #3463 (comment).
Thanks for checking! |
Thanks! (And sorry that I didn't get the idea to look at the post before.) |
autoassess, validation, and all @ledm 's oceans eleven look fine! Stellar work @bouweandela 🍺 |
Thanks, everyone! The release has now been published! |
It's a Christmas miracle 🎄 🎅 |
Recipe test results for v2.10
Here is an overview of the tests done for releasing v2.10. The results are available in https://esmvaltool.dkrz.de/shared/esmvaltool/v2.10.0/debug.html.
Here is the conda environment.yml.
Recipe running session 2023-12-12
Recipes that ran successfully (133 out of 155)
Recipes that failed because the diagnostic script failed (4 out of 155)
recipe_russell18jgr.yml
fails to run #3478)Recipes that failed because of missing data (4 out of 155)
Recipes that failed because the run took too long (8 out of 155)
Recipes that failed because they used too much memory (4 out of 155)
Recipes that failed because of an HDF5 error (3 out of 155)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: