Resolve "Undefined values in FCT tracer advection scheme when using MLF and 'accurate' adaptive-implicit vertical advection algorithm"
Closes #499 (closed).
Tests
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?
Other testing
SETTE does not reproduce this bug since none of the tests use nn_fct_imp=2
. A 10-day ORCA2 run was therefore used to reproduce the issue and verify that the fix both resolved this and did not change results.
Review
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 by Daley Calvert