Nemo merge requestshttps://forge.nemo-ocean.eu/nemo/nemo/-/merge_requests2023-01-30T11:46:17Zhttps://forge.nemo-ocean.eu/nemo/nemo/-/merge_requests/236Resolve "SI3 improve UMx advection scheme"2023-01-30T11:46:17ZClement RoussetResolve "SI3 improve UMx advection scheme"Closes #162Closes #1622022 WPhttps://forge.nemo-ocean.eu/nemo/nemo/-/merge_requests/235Resolve "Fix issue introduced with vertical keys"2023-01-24T12:47:18ZSibylle TecheneResolve "Fix issue introduced with vertical keys"Closes #145
adapt usrdef_zgr : order of argument has changed
for test cases and configuration not tested within setteCloses #145
adapt usrdef_zgr : order of argument has changed
for test cases and configuration not tested within sette2022 WPSibylle TecheneSibylle Techenehttps://forge.nemo-ocean.eu/nemo/nemo/-/merge_requests/234Draft: Resolve "SI3 improve UMx advection scheme"2023-01-24T13:40:49ZClement RoussetDraft: Resolve "SI3 improve UMx advection scheme"Closes #160Closes #1602022 WPhttps://forge.nemo-ocean.eu/nemo/nemo/-/merge_requests/232Resolve "continuous integration tests with SETTE"2023-01-18T15:59:40ZGuillaume SamsonResolve "continuous integration tests with SETTE"Closes #61Closes #612022 WPGuillaume SamsonGuillaume Samsonhttps://forge.nemo-ocean.eu/nemo/nemo/-/merge_requests/225Resolve "Bug in isfstp.F90 when compiling with key_RK3"2023-01-16T10:06:54ZAndrew CowardResolve "Bug in isfstp.F90 when compiling with key_RK3"Quick bug-fix to enable compiling with key_RK3
Closes #154Quick bug-fix to enable compiling with key_RK3
Closes #1542022 WPAndrew CowardAndrew Cowardhttps://forge.nemo-ocean.eu/nemo/nemo/-/merge_requests/223Resolve "Replace DO_[23]D_OVR macros with a threadsafe solution for tiling ov...2024-02-01T15:19:14ZDaley CalvertResolve "Replace DO_[23]D_OVR macros with a threadsafe solution for tiling overlap"Closes #151.
#### Tests
Once the development is done, the PI should complete the tests section below and after ask the reviewers to start their review.
This part should contain the detailed results of ~SETTE tests (restartability and...Closes #151.
#### Tests
Once the development is done, the PI should complete the tests section below and after ask the reviewers to start their review.
This part should contain the detailed results of ~SETTE tests (restartability and reproducibility for each of the reference configuration) and detailed results of restartability and reproducibility when the option is activated on specified configurations used for this test.
**Regular checks**
- [x] Can this change be shown to produce expected impact (option activated)?
- [x] Can this change be shown to have a null impact (option not activated)?
- [x] Results of the required bit comparability tests been run: are there no differences when activating the development?
- [ ] If some differences appear, is reason for the change valid/understood?
- [ ] If some differences appear, is the impact as expected on model configurations?
- [x] Is this change expected to preserve all diagnostics?
- [ ] If no, is reason for the change valid/understood?
- [x] Are there significant changes in run time/memory?
#### Review
A successful review is needed to schedule the merge of this development into the future NEMO release during next Merge Party (usually in November).
**Assessments**
- [ ] Is the proposed methodology now implemented?
- [ ] Are the code changes in agreement with the flowchart defined at preview step?
- [ ] Are the code changes in agreement with list of routines and variables as proposed at preview step?
- [ ] If, not, are the discrepancies acceptable?
- [ ] Is the in-line documentation accurate and sufficient?
- [ ] Do the code changes comply with NEMO coding standards?
- [ ] Is the development documented with sufficient details for others to understand the impact of the change?
- [ ] Is the project ~doc (manual, guide, web, ...) now updated or completed following the proposed summary in preview section?2022 WPDaley CalvertDaley Calverthttps://forge.nemo-ocean.eu/nemo/nemo/-/merge_requests/219Resolve "Simplified version of PISCES"2023-03-14T15:40:15ZChristian EtheResolve "Simplified version of PISCES"Closes #147Closes #1472022 WPChristian EtheChristian Ethehttps://forge.nemo-ocean.eu/nemo/nemo/-/merge_requests/218Resolve "makenemo does not create EXP00 for existing configs"2022-12-29T09:40:30ZSebastien MassonResolve "makenemo does not create EXP00 for existing configs"Closes #146Closes #1462022 WPSebastien MassonSebastien Massonhttps://forge.nemo-ocean.eu/nemo/nemo/-/merge_requests/217Resolve "Fix issue introduced with vertical keys"2023-01-24T13:56:51ZSibylle TecheneResolve "Fix issue introduced with vertical keys"Closes #145Closes #1452022 WPSibylle TecheneSibylle Techenehttps://forge.nemo-ocean.eu/nemo/nemo/-/merge_requests/212remove wrong top limit condition on tke for cavities in gls2022-12-28T15:35:55ZClément Bricaudremove wrong top limit condition on tke for cavities in glsCloses #143Closes #1432022 WPClément BricaudClément Bricaudhttps://forge.nemo-ocean.eu/nemo/nemo/-/merge_requests/210Resolve "GLS: Top limit condition on TKE is duplicated for cavities"2022-12-28T14:20:49ZClément BricaudResolve "GLS: Top limit condition on TKE is duplicated for cavities"Closes #143Closes #1432022 WPClément BricaudClément Bricaudhttps://forge.nemo-ocean.eu/nemo/nemo/-/merge_requests/209Resolve "Makenemo cleaning"2023-03-01T17:47:52ZGuillaume SamsonResolve "Makenemo cleaning"Closes #142Closes #1422022 WPGuillaume SamsonGuillaume Samsonhttps://forge.nemo-ocean.eu/nemo/nemo/-/merge_requests/208Resolve "SI3 salt drainage and flushing"2023-01-23T13:04:42ZClement RoussetResolve "SI3 salt drainage and flushing"Closes #141Closes #1412022 WPhttps://forge.nemo-ocean.eu/nemo/nemo/-/merge_requests/207Draft: Resolve "PISCES Quota Improvement"2023-01-06T09:10:35ZRenaud PersonDraft: Resolve "PISCES Quota Improvement"Closes #139Closes #1392022 WPChristian EtheChristian Ethehttps://forge.nemo-ocean.eu/nemo/nemo/-/merge_requests/206Resolve "Misleading print statement for TOP initialization" ('main')2023-01-30T13:46:20ZSimon MuellerResolve "Misleading print statement for TOP initialization" ('main')Closes #136Closes #1362022 WPSimon MuellerSimon Muellerhttps://forge.nemo-ocean.eu/nemo/nemo/-/merge_requests/204Resolve "does not compile in sigle precision"2022-12-21T14:30:06ZSebastien MassonResolve "does not compile in sigle precision"Closes #110Closes #1102022 WPSebastien MassonSebastien Massonhttps://forge.nemo-ocean.eu/nemo/nemo/-/merge_requests/202Resolve "[WP2022 PHYS - NOC] Add GEOMETRIC parameterisation (2)"2023-03-20T18:41:45ZAndrew CowardResolve "[WP2022 PHYS - NOC] Add GEOMETRIC parameterisation (2)"Closes #128
This is a re-issued merge request to account for a renaming of the development branch to correct a typo in the branch name
#### Tests
Once the development is done, the PI should complete the tests section below and after ...Closes #128
This is a re-issued merge request to account for a renaming of the development branch to correct a typo in the branch name
#### Tests
Once the development is done, the PI should complete the tests section below and after ask the reviewers to start their review.
This part should contain the detailed results of ~SETTE tests (restartability and reproducibility for each of the reference configuration) and detailed results of restartability and reproducibility when the option is activated on specified configurations used for this test.
**Regular checks**
- [x] Can this change be shown to produce expected impact (option activated)?
- [x] Can this change be shown to have a null impact (option not activated)?
- [ ] Results of the required bit comparability tests been run: are there no differences when activating the development?
- [ ] If some differences appear, is reason for the change valid/understood?
- [ ] If some differences appear, is the impact as expected on model configurations?
- [ ] Is this change expected to preserve all diagnostics?
- [ ] If no, is reason for the change valid/understood?
- [ ] Are there significant changes in run time/memory?
#### Review
A successful review is needed to schedule the merge of this development into the future NEMO release during next Merge Party (usually in November).
**Assessments**
- [x] Is the proposed methodology now implemented?
- [x] Are the code changes in agreement with the flowchart defined at preview step?
- [x] Are the code changes in agreement with list of routines and variables as proposed at preview step?
- [ ] If, not, are the discrepancies acceptable?
- [x] Is the in-line documentation accurate and sufficient?
- [x] Do the code changes comply with NEMO coding standards?
- [x] Is the development documented with sufficient details for others to understand the impact of the change?
- [x] Is the project ~doc (manual, guide, web, ...) now updated or completed following the proposed summary in preview section?2022 WPAndrew CowardAndrew Cowardhttps://forge.nemo-ocean.eu/nemo/nemo/-/merge_requests/200Resolve "SETTE issues after 7f3d7e34"2022-12-09T16:08:18ZDaley CalvertResolve "SETTE issues after 7f3d7e34"Closes #132
@gsamson do these changes look ok to you?Closes #132
@gsamson do these changes look ok to you?2022 WPDaley CalvertDaley Calverthttps://forge.nemo-ocean.eu/nemo/nemo/-/merge_requests/199Resolve "error when filing halos larger than the inner domain"2022-12-09T07:48:19ZSebastien MassonResolve "error when filing halos larger than the inner domain"Closes #131Closes #1312022 WPSebastien MassonSebastien Massonhttps://forge.nemo-ocean.eu/nemo/nemo/-/merge_requests/198Draft: Resolve "[WP2022 PHYS - NOC] Add GEOMETRIC parameterisation"2022-12-09T17:09:49ZAndrew CowardDraft: Resolve "[WP2022 PHYS - NOC] Add GEOMETRIC parameterisation"Closes #128
#### Tests
Once the development is done, the PI should complete the tests section below and after ask the reviewers to start their review.
This part should contain the detailed results of ~SETTE tests (restartability and...Closes #128
#### Tests
Once the development is done, the PI should complete the tests section below and after ask the reviewers to start their review.
This part should contain the detailed results of ~SETTE tests (restartability and reproducibility for each of the reference configuration) and detailed results of restartability and reproducibility when the option is activated on specified configurations used for this test.
**Regular checks**
- [ ] Can this change be shown to produce expected impact (option activated)?
- [ ] Can this change be shown to have a null impact (option not activated)?
- [ ] Results of the required bit comparability tests been run: are there no differences when activating the development?
- [ ] If some differences appear, is reason for the change valid/understood?
- [ ] If some differences appear, is the impact as expected on model configurations?
- [ ] Is this change expected to preserve all diagnostics?
- [ ] If no, is reason for the change valid/understood?
- [ ] Are there significant changes in run time/memory?
#### Review
A successful review is needed to schedule the merge of this development into the future NEMO release during next Merge Party (usually in November).
**Assessments**
- [ ] Is the proposed methodology now implemented?
- [ ] Are the code changes in agreement with the flowchart defined at preview step?
- [ ] Are the code changes in agreement with list of routines and variables as proposed at preview step?
- [ ] If, not, are the discrepancies acceptable?
- [ ] Is the in-line documentation accurate and sufficient?
- [ ] Do the code changes comply with NEMO coding standards?
- [ ] Is the development documented with sufficient details for others to understand the impact of the change?
- [ ] Is the project ~doc (manual, guide, web, ...) now updated or completed following the proposed summary in preview section?2022 WPAndrew CowardAndrew Coward