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

Feature request: README file pointing from bld/run back to case directory #369

Closed
billsacks opened this issue Aug 10, 2016 · 1 comment
Closed

Comments

@billsacks
Copy link
Member

This is low priority; I'm mainly opening this issue to start a discussion of whether others would find this useful, and if so, what it should look like.

In debugging someone else's case, I often know where their run directory is, but not their case directory or source code directory. The only way I know to find these is to find a Filepath file in one of the bld directories; this works, but it's awkward.

It would be helpful if there were a README-paths file (or something else) in the bld and/or run directories pointing to the $CASEROOT and $SRCROOT for this case. Maybe there are some other paths that would be useful while we're at it, like $DOUT_S_ROOT (of course, you can find this out if you know $CASEROOT, but it could be convenient to have this directly available from the run directory).

At first I was thinking that this file should be a sibling of bld and run, so we'd have:

/glade/scratch/sacks/mycase
README
bld/
run/

But I don't know if that will work, since bld and run can theoretically be in different paths. So maybe it's best for this to just go in both the bld and run directories? Or just the run directory? In that case, it might also be useful to have a pointer to $EXEROOT in the README in the run directory.

@billsacks
Copy link
Member Author

fixed by #739

pesieber pushed a commit to pesieber/cime that referenced this issue Mar 15, 2023
Now that we're doing interpolation pretty much all the time, we are
covering the cases that these originally tested. Two examples are:

- Crop to non-crop: covered by
  ERP_Ld5.f10_f10_musgs.I1850Clm50Bgc.cheyenne_gnu.clm-default1850 (uses
  finidat
  clmi.I1850Clm50BgcCrop.1366-01-01.0.9x1.25_gx1v6_simyr1850_c180424.nc)

- Non-crop to crop: covered by
  SMS_Ld5.f10_f10_musgs.I1850Clm45BgcCrop.cheyenne_gnu.clm-crop1850 (uses
  finidat
  clmi.I1850Clm45BgcGs.0901-01-01.0.9x1.25_gx1v6_simyr1850_c180204.nc)

In addition, we cover the mindist logic via unit test. What's not
covered by unit test is determining if all variables are initialized
reasonably - particularly important for the non-crop to crop case. But
I'm not sure how we can really be confident of that even if we have a
system test covering this (other than the standard way of seeing that
baseline comparisons haven't changed... but the issue is: if new
behavior is introduced that changes answers for crops, then we could
expect baseline comparisons to change, and so could miss some
issue). That is to say: I'm not sure it's worth having system tests that
explicitly test these cases: it's probably enough to have the unit tests
plus incidental coverage via existing system tests.

Resolves ESMCI#369
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant