ccppdo2#52
Conversation
|
add reviewers. |
|
I will pull this PR right now, and if it also passes b4b tests on my macbook I think we are good to go. |
ligiabernardet
left a comment
ligiabernardet
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Man, if I understand this correctly, some of the overall description of the physics was moved from the Fortran files into .txt files in the docs directory. Our strategy up until now has been to keep most of the documentation within the Fortran file, with the intention of making it easier for developers to update it when they make changes in the code. The drawback is that it makes the Fortran code longer. What motivated you to make this change, and was it discussed in the group while I was on leave?
All else looks OK to me.
|
The reason to keep all description in txt is to make the appearance of documentation more appealing, i.e. with a chapter structure on the left bar. I think that we practiced in this way in gmtb-tierIII for each component.
if we move all scheme description into the beginning of fortran code and only keep main page, it looks like this:
https://dtcenter.org/GMTB/gfs_phys_doc_dev/index.html
We have to click Modules first to access documentation for each scheme.
And also, the paper review or general scientific background in the overall description is not directly related to specific scheme.
mlOn Mar 21, 2018, at 9:50 AM, ligiabernardet <notifications@github.com> wrote:
…
@ligiabernardet commented on this pull request.
Man, if I understand this correctly, some of the overall description of the physics was moved from the Fortran files into .txt files in the docs directory. Our strategy up until now has been to keep most of the documentation within the Fortran file, with the intention of making it easier for developers to update it when they make changes in the code. The drawback is that it makes the Fortran code longer. What motivated you to make this change, and was it discussed in the group while I was on leave?
All else looks OK to me.
—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#52 (review)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/Ab87auivAaiJrNYvaOdA9AVJADUqKuR6ks5tgnbAgaJpZM4SyU7s>.
|
ligiabernardet
left a comment
ligiabernardet
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Man, thanks for clarifying. I think it is nice to have the html display the chapters on the left side. Having the "Description" in the .txt file and the algorithm in the Fortran file seems reasonable. We can always change this in the future if we decide to.
|
Ok, it is too late for approval or rejection, but the branch passed b4b tests on my macbook, too. |
|
Thanks for testing on Mac . It is a good day for me:)
…On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 11:23 AM, Dom Heinzeller ***@***.***> wrote:
Ok, it is too late for approval or rejection, but the branch passed b4b
tests on my macbook, too.
—
You are receiving this because you modified the open/close state.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#52 (comment)>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/Ab87aq5z5FtyMloUgYkIsobat1TPJ3hoks5tgoyugaJpZM4SyU7s>
.
|
|
You did a great job, that was a lot of tedious work! |
physics/sfcsub.F: reduce length of message string for prettier output
…emplates, re-enable GitHub actions testing (NCAR#52) - Update to spack-stack-2.0.0. - Remove upstream pull request and issue templates so that the NEPTUNE org templates are used (this will be a maintained diff between the upstream code and our branch). - Re-enable GitHub actions testing on Atlantis (also a maintained diff).
5 participants
This is the CCPP scientific documentation compatible with features/ccpp, which includes all parameterizations of the 2017 GFS physics suite. It has passed B4B test on Theia.