[MITgcm-devel] OpenAD verification test

[Jean-Michel Campin]

Hi Jean,

Between 11/17, 11/18 and now, most of the changes are 
related to the CD-code time-stepping.
With those 2 options defined (in CD_CODE_OPTIONS.h):
#define CD_CODE_NO_AB_MOMENTUM
#define CD_CODE_NO_AB_CORIOLIS
depending on what parameter you are using, you should get 
exatly the same forward run (and there are test experiments 
  listed in doc/tag_index with CD-scheme on that indeed did not 
  change at all),
or with some truncation differences (if you are using 
  forcing_In_AB = .FALSE., or momForcingOutAB=1,), because
  timestep.F has changed, as Patrick mentionned.

So, which "data" file is used for this case where the cost 
function changes ?

Cheers,
Jean-Michel

On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 01:54:35AM -0600, Jean Utke wrote:
> Hi Jean-Michel,
> 
> In my own regression testing I am comparing some outputs directly without
> using the reference output in the repository and it seems that between
> 11/17
> (or 11/18) and now the cost function  output of a simple setup changed
> somewhat
> as you see below:   (old<  vs new >)
> <   local fc =  0.804679274767541D+06
> <  global fc =  0.804679274767541D+06
> ---
> >   local fc =  0.804687744759401D+06
> >  global fc =  0.804687744759401D+06
> 
> This running the plain mitgcm code (no AD involved). 
> I wanted to verify with you that this is an expected change,,,
> I am asking this because the value of the cost function in this test has
> not
> changed for a long time...
> Please let me know either way so I update my regression tests
> 
> Jean
> 
> 
> Jean-Michel Campin wrote:
> > Hi Jean and Patrick,
> >
> > Yesterday, when I wanted to add this CD_CODE_OPTIONS.h to the OpenAD
> > verification test, I was a little bit confused about where it should
> > go since there are many "code*" dir for this experiment.
> > For instance, there are 5 CPP_OPTIONS.h files arround, but we only
> > do 2 tests (1 with TAF and 1 with OpenAD).
> > Apparently, I picked the right ones this time since last night test 
> > went well. But when I did change seawater.F a couple of weeks ago, 
> > I missed the local version in code_oad_all.
> >
> > It could be a good idea to:
> > - remove dir & files that are not used (e.g., code_ad_openad ? code ?)
> > - update the README file in verification/OpenAD
> > - I would be tempted also to clean-up results_ad dir.
> >   (move what we want to keep to results, but I guess some
> >    of the files in results_ad are not up to date ?)
> > What do you think ?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Jean-Michel
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > MITgcm-devel mailing list
> > MITgcm-devel at mitgcm.org
> > http://mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-devel
> >   
> 
> 
> -- 
> Jean Utke
> Argonne National Lab. / MCS (240-1152)
> 9700 S Cass Ave., Argonne, IL, 60439, USA
> phone +1 630 252 4552 / mobile  +1 630 363 5753
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> MITgcm-devel mailing list
> MITgcm-devel at mitgcm.org
> http://mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-devel