Skip to content
GitLab
Projects Groups Snippets
  • /
  • Help
    • Help
    • Support
    • Community forum
    • Submit feedback
  • Sign in / Register
  • N Nemo
  • Project information
    • Project information
    • Activity
    • Labels
    • Members
  • Repository
    • Repository
    • Files
    • Commits
    • Branches
    • Tags
    • Graph
    • Compare
  • Issues 71
    • Issues 71
    • List
    • Boards
    • Service Desk
    • Milestones
  • Merge requests 21
    • Merge requests 21
  • CI/CD
    • CI/CD
    • Pipelines
    • Jobs
    • Schedules
  • Deployments
    • Deployments
    • Releases
  • External wiki
    • External wiki
  • Activity
  • Graph
  • Create a new issue
  • Jobs
  • Commits
  • Issue Boards
Collapse sidebar
  • NEMO WorkspaceNEMO Workspace
  • Nemo
  • Merge requests
  • !110

Resolve "Wrong automatic definition of the laplacian coefficient"

  • Review changes

  • Download
  • Email patches
  • Plain diff
Open Katherine Hutchinson requested to merge 71-wrong-automatic-definition-of-the-laplacian-coefficient into main Jul 01, 2022
  • Overview 0
  • Commits 2
  • Pipelines 0
  • Changes 2

Closes #71

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?
Edited Jul 01, 2022 by Katherine Hutchinson
Assignee
Assign to
Reviewers
Request review from
Time tracking
Source branch: 71-wrong-automatic-definition-of-the-laplacian-coefficient