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

Bring external land component support to UFS #310

Merged
merged 13 commits into from
Oct 12, 2022

Conversation

uturuncoglu
Copy link
Collaborator

@uturuncoglu uturuncoglu commented Sep 30, 2022

Description of changes

This PR aims to extend nems application to support external land component. Along with these changes, the UFS model will be able to support following RTs:

  • datm_cdeps_lnd_gswp3: 1 day run with CDEPS GSWP3 dataset
  • datm_cdeps_lnd_gswp3_rst: restart run with CDEPS GSWP3 dataset
  • control_p8_atmlnd_sbs: side-by-side test with active atmosphere, uses same configuration with control_p8 and the interaction with FV3 is uni-directional to allow comparing the results coming from FV3/CCPP/NOAHMP with external NOAHMP component

Specific notes

Contributors other than yourself, if any: No
CMEPS Issues Fixed (include github issue #):
A minor issue related with the land component which does not provide cpl_scalars to mediator is fixed.

Are changes expected to change answers? (specify if bfb, different at roundoff, more substantial) No

Any User Interface Changes (namelist or namelist defaults changes)? No

Testing performed

Testing performed if application target is CESM:

  • (recommended) CIME_DRIVER=nuopc scripts_regression_tests.py
    • machines: Cheyenne, Intel MPT
    • details (e.g. failed tests): all tests are passed
  • (recommended) CESM testlist_drv.xml
    • machines and compilers: Cheyenne, Intel MPT
    • details (e.g. failed tests): all tests are passed
  • (optional) CESM prealpha test
    • machines and compilers
    • details (e.g. failed tests):
  • (other) please described in detail
    • machines and compilers
    • details (e.g. failed tests):

Testing performed if application target is UFS-coupled:

  • (recommended) UFS-coupled testing
    • description: All RTs are run on Cheyenne with Intel and GNU compilers and they are passing.
    • details (e.g. failed tests): No

Testing performed if application target is UFS-HAFS:

  • (recommended) UFS-HAFS testing
    • description: All RTs are run on Cheyenne with Intel and GNU compilers and they are passing.
    • details (e.g. failed tests): No

Hashes used for testing:

  • CESM:
  • UFS-coupled, then umbrella repostiory to check out and associated hash:
  • UFS-HAFS, then umbrella repostiory to check out and associated hash:
    • repository to check out:
    • branch/hash:

@uturuncoglu
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@mvertens @DeniseWorthen i am currently testing with CESM. I'll update you about it.

@uturuncoglu
Copy link
Collaborator Author

all tests are passed without any issue.

Copy link
Collaborator

@DeniseWorthen DeniseWorthen left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Sorry for the delay in reviewing. I don't see any issues w/ this PR.

@uturuncoglu
Copy link
Collaborator Author

uturuncoglu commented Oct 11, 2022

@DeniseWorthen Thanks. I think we will merge this first and update CMEPS in UFS side later with your UFS level PR. Right?

@DeniseWorthen
Copy link
Collaborator

Yes, my original thought was that your UFS PR will need new baselines for the added tests. But if we did just a CMEPS PR, we would be able to get that one out of the way first, since it will be able to be combined w/ another non-baseline change PR. But at this point there isn't much in the queue. So I'm not sure it is worth it to do them separately.

@uturuncoglu
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@DeniseWorthen Then, let's merge this and you just update CMEPS in UFS side. I think it would be easier. @mvertens could you review this PR. Then, we could merge it.

Copy link
Collaborator

@mvertens mvertens left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This PR looks fine. @uturuncoglu - can you please run one fully coupled CESM case to see that everything runs before merging. I will not have time to do that today.

@uturuncoglu
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@mvertens I have already run CESM testlist_drv.xml test with cesm2_3_beta09 and they were okay. If you want me to test again. I could do it.

@mvertens
Copy link
Collaborator

@uturuncoglu - thanks! I should have checked. Please go ahead and merge.

@uturuncoglu uturuncoglu merged commit 6ee26a2 into ESCOMP:master Oct 12, 2022
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