FATES land use v2 API update (CTSM-side) #2507
Conversation
Manually cherry-picked from Greg Lemieux's b33a722.
samsrabin
added
FATES API update
this also temporarily removes the use_fates_lupft check for the use_fates_luh namelist defaults
Update build namelist checks for valid landuse v2 mode combinations
|
@samsrabin @glemieux have been going over this extensively. Greg is going to do the testing for this. And then he'll pass it off for someone else to complete the tag. Since, @samrabin you are the author (and we wanted to cycle through FATES tags) we figure you should be the one to make the actual tag. This is just the final steps of the tagging process. So start at step 16 from: When I've done this myself I've typically do some double checking of the work. So I have done up to all of the following steps
The double checking has the intent of doing quick checking to make sure everything is good and we won't have problems later. I trust everyone on the project, but I also appreciate having my own work double checked to help prevent problems that become more involved to track down. FATES tags are also more involved than regular tags and having one person do the FATES tag/testing and another finalize the CTSM side has been a good workflow for us. Pinging @adrifoster as she'll be doing these final steps as well. I'm adding the above steps to a CTSM SE discussion so we can settle on what we all think should be required and what can be optional (I'm thinking require up to step 3, with the later ones optional). |
This needs to have use_fates_luh to avoid the false negative of failing due to not having this mode with use_fates_potentialveg
|
@samsrabin @ekluzek aux_clm testing against I'm going to see if I can get things going on izumi. |
|
@ekluzek @samsrabin Regression testing on derecho is complete and shows B4B results against That said, I didn't see an issue for this. Is it a known issue? |
|
@samsrabin and @glemieux maybe the only thing to do about that test is to mark it as an expected fail for this tag? Especially since it will likely be a bit before the fix can get in (based on the queue of tags). |
|
@glemieux No, it's not always an expected fail. I think Greg's use of a manual name for his test suite run is the culprit here, because it's usually okay. |
|
Testing on izumi is is largely B4B with DIFFS only showing up for fates testmods as expected. That said there was a floating invalid exception caught due to a fates-side issue that I've recorded in NGEET/fates#1221. I've got a fix that I'll turn into a fates PR this morning. I'll rerun all tests with the update post fates merge. |
This matches the corresponding fates tag that also impliments using this file
Relax tolerance for truncating small snocan values in CanopyFluxes See the PR ESCOMP#2457 for details.
|
Status update: running |
|
Regression testing Location: UPDATE: the last testmod, the long Ly20 cropmonthly test, came back b4b. |
|
Regression testing of Location: |
slevis-lmwg
added
PR status: ready
|
Woot! Thanks @glemieux @samsrabin @ekluzek @adrifoster |
Description of changes
Update CTSM to work with FATES land use v2 (NGEET/fates#1116) .
Based on @glemieux's analogous update for E3SM (E3SM-Project/E3SM#6353).
Specific notes
This PR enables the host land model to read in a new landuse x pft static mapping dataset from the fates landuse data tool. A default output at a
4x5resolution is provided.This update also includes a new ctsm-fates specific system test using the
PVTprefix which provides for a 5 year spin-up in the new fates "potentival vegetation" mode the output of which is then used to start a fates landuse transient run using the landuse timeseries data (which was added back with ctsm5.1.dev160).The fates harvest and logging options have been refactored and simplified into a new option,
fates_harvest_mode, to aid the user in selecting harvest modes compatible with other fates run modes. This includes two new modes that use the area or mass harvesting data from the fates LUH2 landuse timeseries data. A new convenience namelist option,use_fates_lupfthas also been provided for turning on fates landuse with no competition and fixed biogeography.Contributors other than yourself, if any: @glemieux, @ckoven
CTSM Issues Fixed (include github issue #): None
Are answers expected to change (and if so in what way)? Yes, but for fates testmods only
Any User Interface Changes (namelist or namelist defaults changes)? Yes.
use_fates_lupftconvenience option (use_fates_luh+use_fates_nocomp+use_fates_fixedbiogeog)use_fates_loggingrefactored intofates_harvest_modewith the addition of two new harvest modesTesting performed, if any: In progress with development.