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

Bug fix for optional input arg "conserve_ice10_tzero" (StieglitzSnow.F90) #1025

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Nov 4, 2024

Conversation

gmao-rreichle
Copy link
Contributor

@gmao-rreichle gmao-rreichle commented Nov 4, 2024

An optional input argument ("conserve_ice10_tzero") was used in an if statement inside subroutine StieglitzSnow_relayer(), but the optional input argument may not be provided by the calling routine.
In the GCM, the optional argument is provided in both calls to StieglitzSnow_relayer(). In the LDAS (incl. catch_incr.F90), however, the optional argument is not always provided, which makes the "if" statement fail with a seg fault error.
The fix is to use the local variable ("conserve_ice10_tzero_tmp"), which always exists, in the offending if statement.

Could be considered trivially 0-diff based on inspection of code change.

cc: @amfox37 @biljanaorescanin @sdrabenh @lcandre2 @saraqzhang @gmao-qliu

…F90)

An optional input argument ("conserve_ice10_tzero") was used in an if statement, but the optional input argument may not be provided by the calling routine. 
In the GCM, the optional argument is provided in both calls to StieglitzSnow_relayer().   In the LDAS, however, the optional argument is not always provided. 
The fix is to use the local variable ("conserve_ice10_tzero_tmp"), which always exists, in the if statement.
@gmao-rreichle gmao-rreichle added 0 diff The changes in this pull request have verified to be zero-diff with the target branch. bugfix This fixes a bug Urgent! labels Nov 4, 2024
@gmao-rreichle gmao-rreichle requested review from a team as code owners November 4, 2024 21:16
@sdrabenh
Copy link
Collaborator

sdrabenh commented Nov 4, 2024

@gmao-rreichle @biljanaorescanin sounds reasonable to me. Thanks for the explanation. I approve, but still need Biljana's approval. Assuming no issues with nightlies (which I doubt) I'll tag for LDAS tomorrow.

@sdrabenh sdrabenh merged commit 96a8a26 into develop Nov 4, 2024
17 checks passed
@sdrabenh sdrabenh deleted the bugfix/rreichle/conserve_ice10_tzero branch November 4, 2024 22:54
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
0 diff The changes in this pull request have verified to be zero-diff with the target branch. bugfix This fixes a bug Urgent!
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants