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 ROBUST_STOKES_PGF and LA_MISALIGNMENT_BUG #659

Merged

Conversation

Hallberg-NOAA
Copy link
Member

Added the new runtime parameters ROBUST_STOKES_PGF and LA_MISALIGNMENT_BUG to allow for the selection of Stokes pressure gradient force calculations that work properly in the limit of vanishingly thin layers and to correct a sign error in the calculations of the misalignment between the waves and shears in the Langmuir number calculations when LA_MISALIGNMENT is true. By default, all answers are bitwise identical, but as these options are not yet widely used it might make sense to move aggressively to obsolete the previous code once more extensive testing has take place. There will be new entries in the MOM_parameter_doc files for some cases, but there are not yet any such cases in the MOM-examples regression suite.

  Added the new runtime parameters ROBUST_STOKES_PGF and LA_MISALIGNMENT_BUG to
allow for the selection of Stokes pressure gradient force calculations that work
properly in the limit of vanishingly thin layers and to correct a sign error in
the calculations of the misalignment between the waves and shears in the
Langmuir number calculations when LA_MISALIGNMENT is true.  By default, all
answers are bitwise identical, but as these options are not yet widely used it
might make sense to move aggressively to obsolete the previous code once more
extensive testing has take place.  There will be new entries in the
MOM_parameter_doc files for some cases, but there are not yet any such cases
in the MOM-examples regression suite.
@Hallberg-NOAA Hallberg-NOAA added bug Something isn't working enhancement New feature or request labels May 29, 2024
@Hallberg-NOAA Hallberg-NOAA requested a review from breichl May 29, 2024 22:12
Copy link

@breichl breichl left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

These changes look correct and maintain backward compatibility. Whether or not this backward compatibility is necessary should be determined later, but for now I would take the changes as is.

Copy link

codecov bot commented Jun 3, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 40.90%. Comparing base (f0badc6) to head (8affaca).

Additional details and impacted files
@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##           dev/gfdl     #659      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     36.93%   40.90%   +3.97%     
============================================
  Files           271       42     -229     
  Lines         81551     5286   -76265     
  Branches      15246     1013   -14233     
============================================
- Hits          30117     2162   -27955     
+ Misses        45791     2939   -42852     
+ Partials       5643      185    -5458     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@marshallward
Copy link
Member

@marshallward marshallward merged commit 08a6106 into NOAA-GFDL:dev/gfdl Jun 3, 2024
12 checks passed
@Hallberg-NOAA Hallberg-NOAA deleted the better_Stokes_PGF_calcs branch June 5, 2024 16:04
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug Something isn't working enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants