Plumber updates #262

TeaganKing · 2024-03-08T20:59:27Z

This will address #248 In order to implement PLUMBER capabilities

slevis-lmwg

The changes for PLUMBER appear to parallel the existing code for NEON, so they seem logical and simple to follow.

Before approving, we probably need to run tests. I have never worked on a CDEPS PR, so I'm not familiar with relevant testing, nor with the merging process (though it's likely similar to CTSM's, RTM's, MOSART's, etc.). But also I doubt that I have the necessary permissions to merge a CDEPS PR...

cime_config/stream_cdeps.py

datm/cime_config/stream_definition_datm.xml

slevis-lmwg · 2024-05-07T22:05:24Z

From meeting with @ekluzek

All externals remain "frozen" until ./manage_externals gets removed (which is cesm tag beta18).
Because this PR changes externals, it needs to wait until after that happens.
People with permissions to merge this PR are Chris Fisher, Bill Sacks, and Jim Edwards.

ekluzek · 2024-05-08T18:18:49Z

A note on somethings we need to do before this is asked for merge:

As above wait until cesm2_3_beta18 freeze is resolved
Test with it in CTSM and make sure it'll work for PLUMBER2 cases
Add a aux_cdeps test for PLUMBER2? (Not going to do, eventually should do this both for NEON and PLUMBER2)
Run the aux_cdeps testlist and make sure it runs the same as a baseline for it (run a baseline first) (this code adds new functionality that shouldn't mess with anything else -- but to make sure it doesn't...)
Ask a CDEPS maintainer to merge it in (a new tag is created when they do)

slevis-lmwg · 2024-05-09T17:04:38Z

Agreed in today's ctsm software meeting:
@TeaganKing will notify @slevis-lmwg when he should run the aux_cdeps test-suite.

TeaganKing · 2024-05-09T21:02:08Z

Per conversation with Erik, we can remove the files listed in PLUMBER2 user mod directories because these will be implemented in another PR (#277 ); those do not need to be moved to CDEPS.

However, we do need to implement the dtlimit used for these various streams specifically for PLUMBER-- hence the placeholder values that I still need to ensure work properly for changing dtlimit when CLM_USRDAT_NAME is set to PLUMBER.

Variables in those user mod directories that are duplicated in the CDEPS stream can be removed once this PR is merged in.

TeaganKing · 2024-06-25T16:02:40Z

The dtlimit is updated as expected when running CTSM when I do an xmlchange to set CLM_USRDAT_NAME to PLUMBER. So, @slevis-lmwg , I think we can run the aux_cdeps test-suite. Note that the CTSM changes (ESCOMP/CTSM#2485 and ESCOMP/CTSM#2406) are not yet available (since they're dependent on this CDEPS PR).

TeaganKing · 2024-06-26T20:16:44Z

This PR introduced CLM_USRDAT_NAME as PLUMBER2 instead of PLUMBER, so I will update that now.

slevis-lmwg · 2024-06-27T23:33:34Z

@TeaganKing I want to confirm that I understand.
I need to combine the branches from these three PRs:
ESCOMP/CTSM#2485
ESCOMP/CTSM#2406
#262
before I start the aux_cdeps test-suite, right?

Also, a note to myself: The checklist points out that I need to generate a baseline.

TeaganKing · 2024-06-28T15:06:45Z

@TeaganKing I want to confirm that I understand. I need to combine the branches from these three PRs: ESCOMP/CTSM#2485 ESCOMP/CTSM#2406 #262 before I start the aux_cdeps test-suite, right?

Also, a note to myself: The checklist points out that I need to generate a baseline.

ESCOMP/CTSM#2406 is very much still in progress, and there are going to be a few changes to ESCOMP/CTSM#2485 still as well (I'll do this within the next few days). What exactly is being tested with the aux_cdeps tests? I personally tested this one just by doing an xmlchange to set CLM_USRDAT_NAME to PLUMBER2, building the case, and checking the input files.

slevis-lmwg · 2024-06-28T16:19:37Z

ESCOMP/CTSM#2406 is very much still in progress, and there are going to be a few changes to ESCOMP/CTSM#2485 still as well (I'll do this within the next few days). What exactly is being tested with the aux_cdeps tests? I personally tested this one just by doing an xmlchange to set CLM_USRDAT_NAME to PLUMBER2, building the case, and checking the input files.

Ok, based on this information, I think I could go ahead and submit aux_cdeps with #262 with ctsm from master (I will try ctsm5.2.007 which is the current latest).

slevis-lmwg · 2024-06-28T23:24:14Z

I tried and failed to generate a baseline using the latest ctsm paired with cdeps1.0.38, i.e. the same cdeps that I see in @TeaganKing's branch:
./run_sys_tests -s aux_cdeps --skip-compare -g cdeps1.0.38_ctsm5.2.008

I also tried and failed to generate a baseline using the latest ctsm paired with cdeps1.0.34, i.e. the default cdeps for ctsm5.2.008:
./run_sys_tests -s aux_cdeps --skip-compare -g cdeps1.0.34_ctsm5.2.008

The former seems less surprising, if e.g. there are incompatibilities between ctsm5.2.008 and cdeps1.0.38.

The latter though means that I have a problem with aux_cdeps (environment or other?) or that aux_cdeps has a problem (in which case it should fail for others, as well).

@TeaganKing at this point I will need help from @ekluzek with this. I will raise the issue at Monday's stand-up.

slevis-lmwg · 2024-07-01T19:14:59Z

I encountered the same problem this morning even with aux_clm and ctsm_sci. This helped me realize that the problem may be as simple as setting an account number that hasn't expired. I will try this again today or tomorrow.

UPDATE 1:
I submitted the same two tests. I expect that at least the cdeps1.0.34 should work and generate a baseline.

UPDATE 2:
Worked out the opposite from what I expected:

ctsm5.2.008 with default cdeps1.034 gave three failures.
ctsm5.2.008 with cdeps1.0.38 passed. This is convenient because the current version of the branch in this PR modifies cdeps1.0.38.

UPDATE 3:
Submitted aux_cdeps comparing this branch to the baseline (tests_0703-140019de).
./run_sys_tests -s aux_cdeps --skip-generate -c cdeps1.0.38_ctsm5.2.008

slevis-lmwg · 2024-07-05T19:15:54Z

@TeaganKing two updates:

Erik clarified that the second checkbox (currently unchecked) is asking you to run one or more plumber cases to confirm that they work.
aux_cdeps fails for several tests with this error during the build phase:

2024-07-03 14:01:30: Test 'SMS_Ld5.f10_f10_mg37.2000_DATM%NLDAS2_SLND_SICE_SOCN_SROF_SGLC_SWAV_SESP.derecho_intel' failed in phase 'SETUP' with exception 'ERROR: Fatal error in case.cmpgen_namelists: 2024-07-03 14:01:29 atm
Create namelist for component datm
   Calling /glade/work/slevis/git_externals/plumber_upd_pr262b/components/cdeps/datm/cime_config/buildnml
   Running /glade/work/slevis/git_externals/plumber_upd_pr262b/components/cdeps/datm/cime_config/buildnml
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/glade/work/slevis/git_externals/plumber_upd_pr262b/components/cdeps/datm/cime_config/buildnml", line 336, in <module>
    _main_func()
  File "/glade/work/slevis/git_externals/plumber_upd_pr262b/components/cdeps/datm/cime_config/buildnml", line 332, in _main_func
    buildnml(case, caseroot, "datm")
  File "/glade/work/slevis/git_externals/plumber_upd_pr262b/components/cdeps/datm/cime_config/buildnml", line 311, in buildnml
    _create_namelists(case, confdir, inst_string, namelist_infile, nmlgen, data_list_path)
  File "/glade/work/slevis/git_externals/plumber_upd_pr262b/components/cdeps/datm/cime_config/buildnml", line 211, in _create_namelists
    streams = StreamCDEPS(stream_file, schema_file)
  File "/glade/work/slevis/git_externals/plumber_upd_pr262b/components/cdeps/datm/cime_config/../../cime_config/stream_cdeps.py", line 65, in __init__
    GenericXML.__init__(self, infile, schema)
  File "/glade/work/slevis/git_externals/plumber_upd_pr262b/cime/CIME/XML/generic_xml.py", line 78, in __init__
    self.read(infile, schema)
  File "/glade/work/slevis/git_externals/plumber_upd_pr262b/cime/CIME/XML/generic_xml.py", line 129, in read
    self.read_fd(fd)
  File "/glade/work/slevis/git_externals/plumber_upd_pr262b/cime/CIME/XML/generic_xml.py", line 159, in read_fd
    self.tree = ET.parse(fd)
  File "/glade/work/slevis/conda-envs/ctsm_pylib/lib/python3.7/xml/etree/ElementTree.py", line 1197, in parse
    tree.parse(source, parser)
  File "/glade/work/slevis/conda-envs/ctsm_pylib/lib/python3.7/xml/etree/ElementTree.py", line 598, in parse
    self._root = parser._parse_whole(source)
xml.etree.ElementTree.ParseError: not well-formed (invalid token): line 4083, column 15
ERROR: /glade/work/slevis/git_externals/plumber_upd_pr262b/components/cdeps/datm/cime_config/buildnml /glade/derecho/scratch/slevis/tests_0703-140019de/SMS_Ld5.f10_f10_mg37.2000_DATM%NLDAS2_SLND_SICE_SOCN_SROF_SGLC_SWAV_SESP.derecho_intel.C.0703-140019de_int FAILED, see above'
  File "/glade/work/slevis/git_externals/plumber_upd_pr262b/cime/CIME/test_scheduler.py", line 1125, in _run_catch_exceptions
    return run(test)
  File "/glade/work/slevis/git_externals/plumber_upd_pr262b/cime/CIME/test_scheduler.py", line 1016, in _setup_phase
    "Fatal error in case.cmpgen_namelists: {}".format(output),
  File "/glade/work/slevis/git_externals/plumber_upd_pr262b/cime/CIME/utils.py", line 176, in expect
    raise exc_type(msg)

slevis-lmwg · 2024-07-05T19:25:23Z

In case it helps, here's a list of tests that PASS versus FAIL:

    PASS SMS_Ld2.ww3a.2000_SATM_SLND_SICE_SOCN_SROF_SGLC_DWAV%CLIMO.derecho_intel RUN 
    PASS SMS_Ld3.f09_f09_mg17.1850_SATM_DLND%SCPL_SICE_SOCN_SROF_SGLC_SWAV.derecho_intel RUN 
    PASS SMS_Ly3.f10_f10_ais8gris4_mg37.2000_SATM_SLND_SICE_SGLC_SROF_DGLC%NOEVOLVE_SWAV.derecho_intel RUN 
    PASS SMS_Ly3.f10_f10_ais8_mg37.2000_SATM_SLND_SICE_SGLC_SROF_DGLC%NOEVOLVE_SWAV.derecho_intel RUN
    PASS SMS_Ly3.f19_g17_gris4.2000_SATM_SLND_SICE_SGLC_SROF_DGLC%NOEVOLVE_SWAV.derecho_intel RUN

As far as I can tell, the PEND failures report the same error as the FAIL in this list:

    FAIL SMS_Ld5.f10_f10_mg37.1850_DATM%GSWP3v1_SLND_SICE_SOCN_SROF_SGLC_SWAV_SESP.derecho_intel SHAREDLIB_BUILD
    PEND SMS_Ld5.f10_f10_mg37.2000_DATM%CRUv7_SLND_SICE_SOCN_SROF_SGLC_SWAV_SESP.derecho_intel SHAREDLIB_BUILD
    PEND SMS_Ld5.f10_f10_mg37.2000_DATM%NLDAS2_SLND_SICE_SOCN_SROF_SGLC_SWAV_SESP.derecho_intel SHAREDLIB_BUILD
    PEND SMS_Ld5.f10_f10_mg37.2000_DATM%QIA_SLND_SICE_SOCN_SROF_SGLC_SWAV_SESP.derecho_intel SHAREDLIB_BUILD
    PEND SMS_Ld5.f10_f10_mg37.2010_DATM%GSWP3v1_SLND_SICE_SOCN_SROF_SGLC_SWAV_SESP.derecho_intel SHAREDLIB_BUILD
    PEND SMS_Ld5.f10_f10_mg37.HIST_DATM%GSWP3v1_SLND_SICE_SOCN_SROF_SGLC_SWAV_SESP.derecho_intel SHAREDLIB_BUILD
    PEND SMS_Ld5.f10_f10_mg37.SSP585_DATM%GSWP3v1_SLND_SICE_SOCN_SROF_SGLC_SWAV_SESP.derecho_intel SHAREDLIB_BUILD
    PEND SMS_Ld5_P1.1x1_mexicocityMEX.2000_DATM%1PT_SLND_SICE_SOCN_SROF_SGLC_SWAV_SESP.derecho_intel.datm-1PT SHAREDLIB_BUILD
    PEND SMS_Ld5.T62_g17.2000_DATM%IAF_SLND_SICE_SOCN_SROF_SGLC_SWAV_SESP.derecho_intel SHAREDLIB_BUILD
    PEND SMS_Ld5.T62_g17.2000_DATM%NYF_SLND_DICE%IAF_DOCN%DOM_SROF_SGLC_SWAV_SESP.derecho_intel SHAREDLIB_BUILD
    PEND SMS_Ld5.T62_g17.2000_DATM%NYF_SLND_DICE%SSMI_DOCN%DOM_SROF_SGLC_SWAV_SESP.derecho_intel SHAREDLIB_BUILD
    PEND SMS_Ld5.T62_g17.2000_DATM%NYF_SLND_SICE_SOCN_SROF_SGLC_SWAV_SESP.derecho_intel SHAREDLIB_BUILD
    PEND SMS_Ld5.TL319_t061.2000_DATM%JRA-1p4-2018_SLND_SICE_SOCN_SROF_SGLC_SWAV_SESP.derecho_intel SHAREDLIB_BUILD
    PEND SMS_Ld5.TL319_t061.2000_DATM%JRA_SLND_SICE_SOCN_SROF_SGLC_SWAV_SESP.derecho_intel SHAREDLIB_BUILD
    PEND SMS_Ln5.f19_f19_mg17.2000_DATM%QIA_SLND_SICE_DOCN%DOM_SROF_SGLC_SWAV.derecho_intel SHAREDLIB_BUILD
    PEND SMS_Ln5.f19_f19_mg17.2000_DATM%QIA_SLND_SICE_DOCN%SOMAQP_SROF_SGLC_SWAV.derecho_intel SHAREDLIB_BUILD
    PEND SMS_Ln5.f19_f19_mg17.HIST_DATM%QIA_SLND_SICE_DOCN%DOM_SROF_SGLC_SWAV.derecho_intel SHAREDLIB_BUILD
    PEND SMS_Ln9_P1.T42_T42.2000_DATM%QIA_SLND_SICE_DOCN%DOM_SROF_SGLC_SWAV.derecho_intel.datm-scam SHAREDLIB_BUILD

slevis-lmwg · 2024-07-05T19:28:31Z

My quick look at the above lists suggests that SATM tests PASS and DATM tests fail.

TeaganKing · 2024-07-08T13:28:23Z

Thank you for running these tests and clarifying the 2nd checkbox item!

Regarding actually running the PLUMBER case, we don't have run_tower() fully functioning at the moment. I was thinking it may be most helpful to move this in and then finalize run_tower() since it will require these changes?

datm/cime_config/config_component.xml

TeaganKing · 2024-08-12T21:40:35Z

Hi @jedwards4b and @billsacks , In a discussion with @wwieder and @ekluzek we decided that it would be best to include an xml variable DATM_YR_START_FILENAME in order to find the relevant PLUMBER file to use as input (the start year listed in the filename is not necessarily the actual start year given that the local time zone is used). These changes were implemented in datm/cime_config/config_component.xml, stream_definition_datm.xml, and the script used to generate the usermods for plumber cases (plumber2_usermods.py). We wanted to run this by you both to see if you had any feedback or concerns regarding this method of implementing the PLUMBER capabilities.

The alternative option that we thought of would be to leave the input files as adjustments to the namelists that could be done in the usermods directories; however, this would be a different (and hence potentially confusing to users) implementation compared to the neon site input file implementation.

billsacks · 2024-08-12T22:10:46Z

Thanks for explaining this, @TeaganKing . I appreciate your laying out the details as well as the alternative that you considered - that's very helpful context.

I feel like I'm missing something, because I'm not seeing where DATM_YR_START_FILENAME is actually used: I see it set in a lot of places, but I can't find where it is used. Is it supposed to appear instead of the 2010 in this line?:

<file first_year="$DATM_YR_START" last_year="$DATM_YR_END">$DIN_LOC_ROOT/atm/datm7/CLM1PT_data/PLUMBER2/${PLUMBER2SITE}/CLM1PT_data/CTSM_DATM_${PLUMBER2SITE}_2010-${DATM_YR_END}.nc</file>

It makes sense to me to have an xml variable for this purpose. It seems like the ideal situation would be to have consistency between the different possible datm modes... something like always using this DATM_YR_START_FILENAME and having it default to DATM_YR_START if it isn't explicitly set... but I imagine that would take a lot to implement. So for now I'm fine with it being done the way it is if others are (and I appreciate the documentation you have added to this variable).

TeaganKing · 2024-08-12T22:25:48Z

Yes, that's precisely where it will be implemented (replacing the 2010 in that example). Okay, thanks for the feedback!

TeaganKing · 2024-08-16T16:45:55Z

Hi @jedwards4b and @billsacks , would one of you be able to review this PR? The aux_cdeps tests are now passing. @ekluzek and I discussed this yesterday as well. Note that this will be used in conjunction with CTSM #2406 and CTSM #2485-- both of which we are planning to bring in to CTSM once this is merged.

billsacks · 2024-08-16T16:51:06Z

Thanks @TeaganKing ! I'm taking a look at this now....

ekluzek

@TeaganKing this is great, thanks for working on this and getting it figured out. I appreciate your sticking it out even though it got difficult.

I ask for a small change, but marking as approved so you don't have to wait for me to reapprove.

I also would've wanted you to add testing around this in CDEPS, but realized the reason for that is that CLM_USRDAT_NAME, NEONSITE, and PLUMBER2SITE are all defined in CTSM. I think we should move them to here in CDEPS so that we can do testing for them in CDEPS and not just in CLM. I'll make an issue around doing that here. This would be a longer term code health/testing improvement type of thing. I suspect it would've been a lot easier to do a lot of the testing here if we could test the CDEPS side for NEON and PLUMBER2 with compsets without CLM.

@TeaganKing in terms of things to do it looks like aux_cdeps passes, have you also run the latest in CTSM to ensure it works? Just want to make sure all the boxes are ticked off..

datm/cime_config/config_component.xml

billsacks

Thanks for your work on this @TeaganKing ! And thanks for running the aux_cdeps testing!

This looks good to me, though I have one comment below about some logic that I don't understand that I think at least warrants a comment.

My understanding is that this is ready to merge from your perspective; is that right? If so, once you respond to / address my comment, I can merge it.

cime_config/stream_cdeps.py

TeaganKing · 2024-08-16T17:25:41Z

@TeaganKing this is great, thanks for working on this and getting it figured out. I appreciate your sticking it out even though it got difficult.

I ask for a small change, but marking as approved so you don't have to wait for me to reapprove.

I also would've wanted you to add testing around this in CDEPS, but realized the reason for that is that CLM_USRDAT_NAME, NEONSITE, and PLUMBER2SITE are all defined in CTSM. I think we should move them to here in CDEPS so that we can do testing for them in CDEPS and not just in CLM. I'll make an issue around doing that here. This would be a longer term code health/testing improvement type of thing. I suspect it would've been a lot easier to do a lot of the testing here if we could test the CDEPS side for NEON and PLUMBER2 with compsets without CLM.

@TeaganKing in terms of things to do it looks like aux_cdeps passes, have you also run the latest in CTSM to ensure it works? Just want to make sure all the boxes are ticked off..

@ekluzek I will open up an issue for testing these if they are moved into CDEPS.

In regards to running the latest in CTSM, are you just proposing pulling in the most recent CTSM changes, replacing the cdeps directory with this PR, and then running aux_cdeps?

billsacks

Thanks again for your careful work on this @TeaganKing, and for sticking with the back and forths this morning !

I am marking this as approved. My sense is that there might be some additional testing that @ekluzek is asking for... I'm not following that carefully... if you let me know once you feel that this is ready to merge I'll go ahead and merge it.

TeaganKing · 2024-08-16T19:15:33Z

Thanks for reviewing this @billsacks ! I'm also not totally following the testing suggestion from @ekluzek -- Erik, do you mind explaining that a bit more?

ekluzek · 2024-08-16T19:57:02Z

Sorry I just wanted to make sure we had all the boxes checked off here:

#262 (comment)

Namely making sure this CMEPS code works in a branch of CTSM where you are bringing this CMEPS update into CTSM. And run CTSM for a few PLUMBER2 sites to make sure it works fine inside of CTSM.

This is where if we could add PLUMBER2 tests to CDEPS -- you'd just have to run aux_cdeps. But, because we can't we need to make sure they work from within CTSM, for running PLUMBER2 sites in a CTSM checkout. Does that make sense now?

TeaganKing · 2024-08-16T20:00:09Z

Sorry I just wanted to make sure we had all the boxes checked off here:

#262 (comment)

Namely making sure this CMEPS code works in a branch of CTSM where you are bringing this CMEPS update into CTSM. And run CTSM for a few PLUMBER2 sites to make sure it works fine inside of CTSM.

This is where if we could add PLUMBER2 tests to CDEPS -- you'd just have to run aux_cdeps. But, because we can't we need to make sure they work from within CTSM, for running PLUMBER2 sites in a CTSM checkout. Does that make sense now?

Okay. So I have run this for a few PLUMBER2 sites and it worked fine inside of CTSM-- but that required using the changes from both of the CTSM PLUMBER-related PRs.

ekluzek · 2024-08-16T20:47:07Z

Perfect, that's what I wanted to make sure had been done. It's normal for CTSM work to also depend on an external like CDEPS. Once, you can show the thing both works with the new CDEPS and other CTSM changes -- and doesn't break other CDEPS cases, we make the CDEPS tag. Then you can point to it in your CTSM PR, which still probably will take work to come into the CTSM side.

So I checked off all the checkboxes now.

@billsacks please press the merge button! Thanks everyone!

jedwards4b · 2024-08-23T22:30:05Z

Copying an email from @fischer-ncar:
Hi All,

In some pre-prealpha testing I ran into some unexpected answer changes from #262 (cdeps1.0.47)
The answer changes I'm seeing are only in the coupler. Several CAM and MOM tests showing the answer changes. I'm not seeing answer
changes in other components. For cam I'm seeing the following kind answer changes.

RMS atmExp_So_u10withGust 6.8157E+00 NORMALIZED 2.6838E+00
RMS Med_aoflux_ocn_So_u10withGust 7.2540E+00 NORMALIZED 2.5991E+00
RMS Med_aoflux_atm_So_u10withGust 7.2540E+00 NORMALIZED 2.5991E+00

For MOM I'm seeing this kind of answer change.

RMS Med_aoflux_ocn_So_u10withGust 6.3118E+00 NORMALIZED 2.9113E+00

I'm not too overly worried about the answer changes since I'm only seeing them with coupler fields. But worried enough that I should make people aware of it.
This is the list of the answer changing tests I've seen so far.

FAIL DIMCSL_Ld1.TL319_t232.G_JRA.derecho_intel.mom-cfc_mods BASELINE cesm3_0_alpha03a: DIFF
FAIL ERP_D_Ln9.f09_f09_mg17.F2000climo.derecho_intel.cam-outfrq9s_contrail BASELINE cesm3_0_alpha03a: DIFF
FAIL ERP_D_Ln9.f19_f19_mg17.FSD.derecho_intel.cam-outfrq9s_sd BASELINE cesm3_0_alpha03a: DIFF
FAIL ERP_D_Ln9.f19_f19_mg17.QPC6.derecho_intel.cam-outfrq9s BASELINE cesm3_0_alpha03a: DIFF
FAIL ERP_Ld3.f09_f09_mg17.FCfireHIST.derecho_intel.cam-outfrq1d BASELINE cesm3_0_alpha03a: DIFF
FAIL ERP_Ln9.f09_f09_mg17.F1850.derecho_intel.cam-outfrq9s BASELINE cesm3_0_alpha03a: DIFF
FAIL ERP_Ln9.f09_f09_mg17.F2000climo.derecho_intel.cam-outfrq9s BASELINE cesm3_0_alpha03a: DIFF
FAIL ERP_Ln9.f09_f09_mg17.F2010climo.derecho_intel.cam-outfrq9s BASELINE cesm3_0_alpha03a: DIFF
FAIL ERP_Ln9.f09_f09_mg17.FCnudged_GC.derecho_intel.cam-outfrq9s BASELINE cesm3_0_alpha03a: DIFF
FAIL ERS_Ld3.f19_f19_mg17.FXHIST.derecho_intel.cam-waccmx_weimer BASELINE cesm3_0_alpha03a: DIFF
FAIL ERS_Ld3.mpasa120_mpasa120.FWsc2000climo.derecho_intel.cam-outfrq1d_physgrid_tem_mpasa120_wcmsc BASELINE cesm3_0_alpha03a: DIFF
FAIL ERS_Ln9.f19_f19_mg17.FSPCAMM.derecho_intel.cam-outfrq9s BASELINE cesm3_0_alpha03a: DIFF
FAIL ERS_Ln9.ne30pg3_ne30pg3_mg17.FHIST.derecho_intel.drv-asyncio1pernode--cam-outfrq9s BASELINE cesm3_0_alpha03a: DIFF
FAIL ERS.ne30pg3_t232.1850_CAM60_CLM50%BGC-CROP_CICE_MOM6_MOSART_DGLC%NOEVOLVE_SWAV.derecho_intel.allactive-defaultio BASELINE cesm3_0_alpha03a: DIFF
FAIL SCT_D_Ln7.T42_T42_mg17.QPC5.derecho_intel.cam-scm_prep BASELINE cesm3_0_alpha03a: DIFF
FAIL SMS_C2_Ln9.f19_f19_mg17.FXHIST.derecho_intel.cam-outfrq9s BASELINE cesm3_0_alpha03a: DIFF
FAIL SMS_D_Ln9.f09_f09_mg17.FCHIST.derecho_intel.cam-outfrq9s_ocnemis BASELINE cesm3_0_alpha03a: DIFF
FAIL SMS_D_Ln9.f09_f09_mg17.FCts2SD.derecho_intel.cam-outfrq9s BASELINE cesm3_0_alpha03a: DIFF
FAIL SMS_D_Ln9.f09_f09_mg17.FWHIST.derecho_intel.cam-reduced_hist3s BASELINE cesm3_0_alpha03a: DIFF
FAIL SMS_D_Ln9.f09_f09_mg17.FWma2000climo.derecho_intel.cam-outfrq9s BASELINE cesm3_0_alpha03a: DIFF
FAIL SMS_D_Ln9.f09_f09_mg17.FWsc1850.derecho_intel.cam-outfrq9s BASELINE cesm3_0_alpha03a: DIFF
FAIL SMS_D_Ln9.f09_f09_mg17.FWscHIST.derecho_intel.cam-outfrq9s BASELINE cesm3_0_alpha03a: DIFF
FAIL SMS_D_Ln9.f19_f19_mg17.FWsc2010climo.derecho_intel.cam-outfrq9s BASELINE cesm3_0_alpha03a: DIFF
FAIL SMS_D_Ln9_P1280x1.ne0CONUSne30x8_ne0CONUSne30x8_mt12.FHIST.derecho_intel.cam-outfrq9s BASELINE cesm3_0_alpha03a: ERROR BFAIL some baseline files were missing
FAIL SMS_D_Ln9_P144x3.f19_f19_mg17.FC2000climo.derecho_intel.cam-outfrq9s_camchem_mam4 BASELINE cesm3_0_alpha03a: DIFF
FAIL SMS_D.TL319_t232.G_JRA_RYF.derecho_intel BASELINE cesm3_0_alpha03a: DIFF
FAIL SMS_Ld1.f09_f09_mg17.FW2010climo.derecho_intel.cam-outfrq1d BASELINE cesm3_0_alpha03a: DIFF
FAIL SMS_Ld1.ne30_ne30_mg17.FC2010climo.derecho_intel.cam-outfrq1d BASELINE cesm3_0_alpha03a: DIFF
FAIL SMS_Ld40.TL319_t232.C_JRA.derecho_intel BASELINE cesm3_0_alpha03a: DIFF
FAIL SMS_Ln9.f09_f09_mg17.FW1850.derecho_intel.cam-reduced_hist3s BASELINE cesm3_0_alpha03a: DIFF
FAIL SMS_Ln9.ne30_ne30_mg17.FW2000climo.derecho_intel.cam-outfrq9s BASELINE cesm3_0_alpha03a: DIFF
FAIL SMS.TL319_t232.G1850MARBL_JRA.derecho_intel BASELINE cesm3_0_alpha03a: DIFF
FAIL SMS.TL319_t232.G_JRA.derecho_intel.mom-no_stoch_physics BASELINE cesm3_0_alpha03a: DIFF

Chris

ekluzek · 2024-08-26T17:33:55Z

An update about the possible change in answers from this PR. @fischer-ncar in doing more testing found that this isn't the source of the answer changes. So he's doing more testing to find the cause.

TeaganKing added 2 commits March 8, 2024 13:57

preliminary cdeps updatesls

cda4168

namelist def datm update

b784004

TeaganKing self-assigned this Mar 8, 2024

TeaganKing mentioned this pull request Mar 8, 2024

Plumber2 Implementation ESCOMP/CTSM#2406

Open

Merge branch 'main' into plumber

8bd6080

TeaganKing mentioned this pull request Apr 23, 2024

Plumber.5.2 ESCOMP/CTSM#2485

Merged

TeaganKing requested a review from ekluzek May 1, 2024 20:15

slevis-lmwg reviewed May 7, 2024

View reviewed changes

cime_config/stream_cdeps.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

datm/cime_config/stream_definition_datm.xml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

updates to PLUMBER stream

47a0d2b

TeaganKing added 2 commits May 9, 2024 13:34

include correct variables in stream

c2ac676

temporary plumber change for dtlimit

13f4594

TeaganKing added 2 commits May 15, 2024 11:52

Update if statements for dtlimit in stream_definition_datm.xml

d001610

Merge branch 'ESCOMP:main' into plumber

8c47b86

Update stream_definition_datm.xml: PLUMBER to PLUMBER2

6d4ce9e

TeaganKing mentioned this pull request Jun 27, 2024

PLUMBER2 refactoring inputdata adjustments ESCOMP/CTSM#2410

Open

4 tasks

TeaganKing commented Aug 12, 2024

View reviewed changes

datm/cime_config/config_component.xml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

TeaganKing and others added 3 commits August 13, 2024 11:39

implement xml var DATM_YR_START_FILENAME

e35cb72

updates for aux-cdeps tests now passing

0a43861

Merge branch 'ESCOMP:main' into plumber

1251a7b

TeaganKing requested review from jedwards4b and billsacks August 16, 2024 16:46

ekluzek approved these changes Aug 16, 2024

View reviewed changes

datm/cime_config/config_component.xml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

billsacks requested changes Aug 16, 2024

View reviewed changes

cime_config/stream_cdeps.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Update config_component.xml to address Erik's comment

1797342

Update config_component.xml to use positive 9999

ffd4077

TeaganKing mentioned this pull request Aug 16, 2024

Define and test CLM_USRDAT_NAME, NEONSITE, and PLUMBER2SITE in CDEPS rather than CTSM #296

Open

Add comment to stream_cdeps.py

7e363e7

billsacks approved these changes Aug 16, 2024

View reviewed changes

TeaganKing removed the request for review from jedwards4b August 16, 2024 21:12

billsacks changed the title ~~[WIP] Plumber updates~~ Plumber updates Aug 16, 2024

billsacks merged commit f199f9f into ESCOMP:main Aug 16, 2024
1 check passed

ekluzek deleted the plumber branch August 26, 2024 17:33

TeaganKing mentioned this pull request Sep 4, 2024

Add PLUMBER2 option for CLM_USRDAT_NAME for datm similar to handling of NEON #248

Closed

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Plumber updates #262

Plumber updates #262

TeaganKing commented Mar 8, 2024

slevis-lmwg left a comment

slevis-lmwg commented May 7, 2024 •

edited

Loading

ekluzek commented May 8, 2024 •

edited

Loading

slevis-lmwg commented May 9, 2024

TeaganKing commented May 9, 2024 •

edited

Loading

TeaganKing commented Jun 25, 2024

TeaganKing commented Jun 26, 2024

slevis-lmwg commented Jun 27, 2024

TeaganKing commented Jun 28, 2024 •

edited

Loading

slevis-lmwg commented Jun 28, 2024

slevis-lmwg commented Jun 28, 2024 •

edited

Loading

slevis-lmwg commented Jul 1, 2024 •

edited

Loading

slevis-lmwg commented Jul 5, 2024

slevis-lmwg commented Jul 5, 2024

slevis-lmwg commented Jul 5, 2024

TeaganKing commented Jul 8, 2024 •

edited

Loading

TeaganKing commented Aug 12, 2024 •

edited

Loading

billsacks commented Aug 12, 2024

TeaganKing commented Aug 12, 2024

TeaganKing commented Aug 16, 2024

billsacks commented Aug 16, 2024

ekluzek left a comment

billsacks left a comment

TeaganKing commented Aug 16, 2024 •

edited

Loading

billsacks left a comment

TeaganKing commented Aug 16, 2024

ekluzek commented Aug 16, 2024

TeaganKing commented Aug 16, 2024

ekluzek commented Aug 16, 2024

jedwards4b commented Aug 23, 2024

ekluzek commented Aug 26, 2024

Plumber updates #262

Plumber updates #262

Conversation

TeaganKing commented Mar 8, 2024

slevis-lmwg left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

slevis-lmwg commented May 7, 2024 • edited Loading

ekluzek commented May 8, 2024 • edited Loading

slevis-lmwg commented May 9, 2024

TeaganKing commented May 9, 2024 • edited Loading

TeaganKing commented Jun 25, 2024

TeaganKing commented Jun 26, 2024

slevis-lmwg commented Jun 27, 2024

TeaganKing commented Jun 28, 2024 • edited Loading

slevis-lmwg commented Jun 28, 2024

slevis-lmwg commented Jun 28, 2024 • edited Loading

slevis-lmwg commented Jul 1, 2024 • edited Loading

slevis-lmwg commented Jul 5, 2024

slevis-lmwg commented Jul 5, 2024

slevis-lmwg commented Jul 5, 2024

TeaganKing commented Jul 8, 2024 • edited Loading

TeaganKing commented Aug 12, 2024 • edited Loading

billsacks commented Aug 12, 2024

TeaganKing commented Aug 12, 2024

TeaganKing commented Aug 16, 2024

billsacks commented Aug 16, 2024

ekluzek left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

billsacks left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

TeaganKing commented Aug 16, 2024 • edited Loading

billsacks left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

TeaganKing commented Aug 16, 2024

ekluzek commented Aug 16, 2024

TeaganKing commented Aug 16, 2024

ekluzek commented Aug 16, 2024

jedwards4b commented Aug 23, 2024

ekluzek commented Aug 26, 2024

slevis-lmwg commented May 7, 2024 •

edited

Loading

ekluzek commented May 8, 2024 •

edited

Loading

TeaganKing commented May 9, 2024 •

edited

Loading

TeaganKing commented Jun 28, 2024 •

edited

Loading

slevis-lmwg commented Jun 28, 2024 •

edited

Loading

slevis-lmwg commented Jul 1, 2024 •

edited

Loading

TeaganKing commented Jul 8, 2024 •

edited

Loading

TeaganKing commented Aug 12, 2024 •

edited

Loading

TeaganKing commented Aug 16, 2024 •

edited

Loading