fix(FlowModelInterface.f90): re-install if statement for proper messaging #1531
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
wpbonelli
approved these changes
Dec 30, 2023
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't recall a reason for removing the outer condition, this just seems like a mistake on my end — sorry for the lost time @emorway-usgs
broken parallel CI is a separate unrelated issue
|
The ci seems to be failing on a parallel build. I've relaunched the ci a number of times in case it is related to the occasional hiccup, but it is persisting? Hard to believe it is related to this PR since I just reinstated an |
|
It is unrelated, it's affecting all PRs at the moment |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
In #1332, wherein some code originally appearing in
tsp1fmi1.f90was moved toFlowModelInterface.f90, the line of code pointed to in the screen grabs below didn't survive the move. As a result, I was getting some messaging printed to console that was throwing me for a loop while debugging GWE. That is, when some code in an exchange was being defined it was being reported that "FLOWS ARE ASSUMED TO BE ZERO." However, that's not the case. This PR seeks to restore theifstatement indicated in the screen grabs which should lead to better messaging. I may be missing something, though? Also interested in see what the ci comes back with. This change shouldn't impact any of the autotests.Original code (prior to #1332):
New code (after #1332) is missing the line in question:
