Skip to content

UFS-dev PR#299#694

Merged
grantfirl merged 28 commits into
NCAR:mainfrom
grantfirl:ufs-dev-PR299
Jun 8, 2026
Merged

UFS-dev PR#299#694
grantfirl merged 28 commits into
NCAR:mainfrom
grantfirl:ufs-dev-PR299

Conversation

@grantfirl

@grantfirl grantfirl commented May 28, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

SOURCE: @grantfirl, CIRA/DTC

DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES:

  • Changes analogous to Tendency application update NOAA-EMC/ufsatm#989
  • removal of obsolete schemes in SDFs and ccpp_prebuild_config.py
  • addition of new interstitial schemes in SDFs and ccpp_prebuild_config.py
  • changed metadata in GFS/CCPP_typedefs
  • new tendency control variables in GFS_typedefs/GFS_control DDT
  • new tendency variables in CCPP_typedefs/GFS_interstitial DDT

ISSUE: None

ASSOCIATED PRs:
NCAR/ccpp-physics#1220

TESTS CONDUCTED:
SCM RTs, UFS RTs, additional result change comparisons for selected suites in UFS/SCM

This PR catches the NCAR:main branch up with changes from the ufs-community:ufs/dev branch.

Associated ufs/dev PR:

Associated ufsatm PR:

Associated NCAR PR:


REGRESSION TEST CHANGES: All/most are expected to change results, but only very small changes.

@scrasmussen scrasmussen left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This looks good, lots of changes here, thanks @grantfirl!

I scanned the changes and they make sense to me, though there are so many I am leaning on the CI passing.

This was referenced Jun 3, 2026
Comment thread scm/src/GFS_typedefs.F90

@hertneky hertneky left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks good - just a comment on an extra line deletion that differed from UFS/dev to take/leave.
Also in GFS_typedefs.F90, I am guessing these changes weren't needed for SCM, but just making sure.

@grantfirl

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

Looks good - just a comment on an extra line deletion that differed from UFS/dev to take/leave. Also in GFS_typedefs.F90, I am guessing these changes weren't needed for SCM, but just making sure.

Good eye. I think that I didn't bring this change over because I thought it was just related to the difference in how UFS was doing tracers, but upon a little digging, this did fix an actual integer underflow bug in UFS. I'm not sure that it would have ever come up in the SCM context, but I fixed it nevertheless. Should be good now.

@grantfirl

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

I think that the RT differences look OK. I didn't look at all of the difference plots, but the ones that I did are consistent with what was experienced with the UFS.

@grantfirl grantfirl merged commit a60e659 into NCAR:main Jun 8, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants