[MITgcm-devel] code changes

[Jean-Michel Campin]

Hi Martin,

I am just checking that all the recent test went well
and I can do a tag just after.
Is it OK like this ?

Cheers,
Jean-Michel

On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 09:05:20AM +0100, Martin Losch wrote:
> Cool,
> 
> maybe we can make a tag today after the tests (Jean-Michel, could you let me know when it is a good time for this) and then I'll make these changes.
> 
> Martin
> 
> On Mar 15, 2011, at 7:07 AM, Patrick Heimbach wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Hi Martin,
> > 
> > I'm happy with the suggested changes, which as far as I can see affect
> > ctrl_init.F
> > ctrl_get_gen.F
> > ctrl_get_gen_rec.F or rather the routines calling this one, which,
> >                   in addition to ctrl_get_gen.F, are the ctrl_getobcsX.F
> > 
> > I'm only aware of Holly using the cyclic controls, but there may be others.
> > Seems to me the change should occur in conjunction with a tag,
> > and the change in behavior advertised on support 
> > (although few will likely know what you're talking about ;)
> > 
> > -p.
> > 
> > On Mar 11, 2011, at 3:47 AM, Martin Losch wrote:
> > 
> >> Patrick (and others who might be affected),
> >> 
> >> what do you think about this? A hypothetical comment in ctrl.h could look like this:
> >> 
> >> c     xx_${varname}period - sampling interval for the ${varname} control 
> >> c                           part in seconds
> >> c     special cases for ifdef ALLOW_CAL (in anology to pkg/exf):
> >> c     xx_${varname}period = -12. : control parameter is the seasonal cycle
> >> c     xx_${varname}period =   0. : control parameter is constant in time
> >> 
> >> currently "xx_${varname}period =   0." means seasonal cycle (inconsistent with exf), but is this used often, so that a change would break a lot of set-ups?
> >> 
> >> Martin
> >> 
> >> On Mar 10, 2011, at 11:16 AM, Martin Losch wrote:
> >> 
> >>> Hi Holly (and Patrick),
> >>> 
> >>> maybe better to continue this on the devel-list. 
> >>> 
> >>> I had another look into the ctrl-pkg. Your code below is basically a modified copy from ctrl_get_gen.F, right? This in turn looks similar to exf_set_gen.F except that there the -12 is implemented and the 0 is dealt with in exf_getffieldrec.F. In the current code I have copied the handling of fldperiod=0 from exf_getffieldrec to ctrl_get_gen_rec and this will have no effect on the surface forcing ctrl fields because in ctrl_get_gen 0 is interpreted as monthly values and ctrl_get_gen_rec is not called.
> >>> 
> >>> I suggest to change this behavior like this:
> >>> 1. in ctrl_get_gen replace (xx_genperiod .EQ. 0) with (xx_genperiod .EQ. -12) to be consistent with exf_set_gen. This might affect a few set-ups and we have to be careful to communicate this change (how would we do this? support list?). The alternative is to use a different number for constant fields, e.g. -1, but that would be inconsistent with exf
> >>> 2. add your code to ctrl_getobcs?.F but also replace 0 by -12
> >>> 
> >>> The second point is independent of the first one, but I find it strange to have different parameters behave differently (e.g., xx_obcswperiod and xx_atempperiod). 
> >>> 
> >>> In both cases ctrl_init.F also needs to be modified (the change from fldperiod 0 -> -12, and still catching the 0), so
> >>>>      if ( xx_atempperiod .EQ. 0 ) then
> >>>>      startrec=1
> >>>>      endrec=12
> >>>>      else
> >>> has to become
> >>>>      if ( xx_atempperiod .EQ. -12 ) then
> >>>>      startrec=1
> >>>>      endrec=12
> >>>>      elseif ( xx_atempperiod .EQ. 0 ) then
> >>> 
> >>>>      startrec=1
> >>>>      endrec=1
> >>>>      else
> >>> or so. But this is exactly the part of the ctrl-package, where I quickly loose the overview and I need Patrick's opinion.
> >>> 
> >>> Martin
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> MITgcm-devel mailing list
> MITgcm-devel at mitgcm.org
> http://mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-devel