-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 92
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
Move all the patch-level hist vars to site-level #642
Conversation
@@ -3132,36 +3104,26 @@ subroutine update_history_prod(this,nc,nsites,sites,dt_tstep) | |||
ccohort => cpatch%shortest | |||
do while(associated(ccohort)) | |||
|
|||
! TODO: we need a standardized logical function on this (used lots, RGK) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Nice that this update takes care of the TO DO.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Just a couple of small potential changes.
All expected PASS:
All DIFFs related to the changes from patch to site-level. @ckoven reviewed and thinks the differences are reasonable, noting that it likely has to do with the "time-averaging differences in patch areas". |
at least i think so... |
I like how more lines were removed than were added. I think this looks good. |
Deconflicting PR640 fire variable update with PR 642
Status update: ran a quick test late yesterday after the deconflict merge and a bunch of tests are failing during run time. Looking into the cause. |
Problem turned out to be the fact that #640 updated the |
Re-test against current master baseline results in the same DIFFs as seen previously. All expected PASS.
|
There have been a few variables that stayed on the old patch native weighting in the history writing. The use of these is confusing for a few reasons: its confusingly inconsistent with how we're doing things otherwise, its more complicated (since the patch weighting system weighted by patch canopy area rather than patch area for reasons having to do with radiative transfer and the existence of a "bare-ground" patch in that scheme), and it won't play well with more complex subgrid structure once we start moving to using other-than-natural-veg land types. So this PR gets rid of all of the remaining ones (those that aren't already removed in #640).
problem noted in #475 and #630. fixes #475.
Collaborators:
discussed with @rgknox, @rosiealice, and @glemieux
Expectation of Answer Changes:
should be bit for bit or roundoff-level changes only, with the exception that I got rid of one redundant variable,
NPP_column
.Checklist:
Test Results:
not yet run through test suite.
CTSM (or) E3SM (specify which) test hash-tag:
CTSM (or) E3SM (specify which) baseline hash-tag:
FATES baseline hash-tag:
Test Output: