Add option for CRUJRA2024 add some compsets for Clm60 for it as well as a corresponding compset for Clm5#2956
Conversation
|
First attempt at testing: |
|
Second set of tests on derecho: Checked the last two suites with these commands: In aux_cdeps, this test fails here but also in vanilla ctsm5.3.021: |
|
3rd round to test the "clm5" changes |
|
TODOs
|
ekluzek
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@slevis-lmwg and I met and we went over the things to do and there's a conversation for them.
Since, we aren't doing the answer changing part here -- this could be put onto b4b-dev. What do you think about that @slevis-lmwg?
|
derecho testing izumi testing
|
|
@ekluzek this is ready once again for your review. |
ekluzek
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I request some changes. But, they are easy. I was thinking we needed to do more in a particular area, but was able to back away from that.
slevis resolved conflicts: doc/ChangeLog doc/ChangeSum
|
tests derecho izumi
|
|
Tests are in progress again. |
Description of changes
Change the default datm input from GSWP3v1 to CRUJRA2024 for Clm6.
Add a CRUJRA2024 compset for clm5.
See #1895 for definition of DONE.
Specific notes
Contributors other than yourself (I hope I didn't forget any):
@wwieder @adrifoster @swensosc @djk2120 @ekluzek @olyson
CTSM Issues Fixed (include github issue #):
Resolves #1895
Are answers expected to change (and if so in what way)?
No. We will make a separate answer-changing PR to address Clm6 tests that do not specify the datm input, so that they get CRUJRA2024 instead of GSWP3v1.
Any User Interface Changes (namelist or namelist defaults changes)?
Adding Crujra to compset names.
Adding new tests that explicitly include Crujra in their compset names.
Clm60 tests that do not include a datm option in their compset will default to Crujra in a later PR.
Does this create a need to change or add documentation? Did you do so?
It does, and I did not, yet.
Testing performed, if any:
See relevant posts below.