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

Update testlist for derecho and fix a few problems #523

Open
wants to merge 10 commits into
base: cesm-coupling
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

ekluzek
Copy link
Collaborator

@ekluzek ekluzek commented Mar 19, 2025

Update the testlist to work on Derecho, and fix some miscellaneous problems.

Fixes #520
Fixes #465
Fixes #417
Fixes #516
Fixes #519
Fixes #512 << still do

ekluzek added 5 commits March 14, 2025 23:31

Verified

This commit was signed with the committer’s verified signature.
szokeasaurusrex Daniel Szoke
@ekluzek ekluzek added enhancement Improving usability, performance or other types of enhancements WIP [DO NOT MERGE] Working in Progress - not ready to merge yet cesm-coupling For cesm coupling cleanup clean up the codes (remove unnecessary lines, indentation, styles) bugfix infrastructure issues or code changes related to code organization, data structure, refactoring labels Mar 19, 2025
@ekluzek ekluzek requested a review from nmizukami March 19, 2025 19:46
@ekluzek ekluzek self-assigned this Mar 19, 2025
@nmizukami
Copy link
Collaborator

nmizukami commented Mar 19, 2025

Hi @ekluzek, thanks for finishing derecho test case and fixing the rpointer file I/O (which looks good to me). I will look over the rest, and merge it (unless I have any question).

There is a label WIP[do not merge]. is this supposed to be removed now?

@ekluzek
Copy link
Collaborator Author

ekluzek commented Mar 19, 2025

Let me run the full test list first. And there is still one more task to do on this PR.

Then I'll remove the WIP label and have you merge it. I also want to have us make a tag with it as soon as we run the test list.

Copy link
Collaborator

@nmizukami nmizukami left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hi Erik, I started looking at this. I don't have anything I noticed, except one inline comment on opnfil subroutine

@@ -149,7 +149,7 @@ subroutine opnfil (locfn, iun, form)
! !ARGUMENTS:
implicit none
character(len=*), intent(in):: locfn !file name
integer, intent(in):: iun !fortran unit number
integer :: iun !fortran unit number
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

is this supposed to be input intent?? or inout??

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It seems to need to be inout, so I removed the intent. But, I could be explicit to say

integer, intent(inout):: iun

if you prefer. That might be better because it means the intent was thought about.

And actually, maybe what it should be is: intent(out), since that's the way it's really working. So I'll try that...

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bugfix cesm-coupling For cesm coupling cleanup clean up the codes (remove unnecessary lines, indentation, styles) enhancement Improving usability, performance or other types of enhancements infrastructure issues or code changes related to code organization, data structure, refactoring WIP [DO NOT MERGE] Working in Progress - not ready to merge yet
Projects
2 participants