Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

flexible restart writing in UFS #1651

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

jiandewang
Copy link
Collaborator

This mini PR add the capability of flexible restart write times which is controlled by "restart_fh" for all subcomponents (ocean, ice, wave and mediator) in UFS. Detail can be found at NOAA-EMC#139
The only file that is being modified is mom_cap.F90
Thanks for @alperaltuntas to pre-test this in NCAR system

NickSzapiro-NOAA and others added 3 commits December 11, 2024 11:08
Modify mom_cap.F90 so that restart writes can be triggered at any forecast time via UFS configuration as for other components
…n-20241127

update to main repo. 20250113 commit (20241127-PR)
Copy link
Collaborator

@abozec abozec left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

COAPS is not using the nuopc_cap so we approve ...

Copy link
Collaborator

@Hallberg-NOAA Hallberg-NOAA left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

In general, we are not very happy with the use of CPP macros, as it leads to code that might not even compile, but in this case this is an extension of macros that already exist and are in use to accommodate differences between the CESM version of the NUOPC coupler and the version used by other people. We might want to think more carefully about whether there are other non-EMC and non-CESM folks who are using the NUOPC coupler and might need to be consulted with these changes.

That being said, GFDL does not use the NUOPC cap for our configurations, so this would not be a problem from our end. (@marshallward will need to issue the formal approval from the GFDL side.)

@marshallward
Copy link
Collaborator

marshallward commented Jan 25, 2025

@Hallberg-NOAA Your approval counts towards the total approval, so nothing more is needed from GFDL.

Although it's "one vote per node", there's no way to enforce this in GitHub, so centers with multiple approvers have to self-enforce this. (I have removed myself from the reviewer list.)

@marshallward marshallward removed their request for review January 25, 2025 13:46
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.

5 participants