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

Pre-release update and minor fixes #396

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Aug 4, 2022
Merged

Conversation

apcraig
Copy link
Contributor

@apcraig apcraig commented Aug 3, 2022

PR checklist

  • Short (1 sentence) summary of your PR:
    Several minor pre-release updates

  • Developer(s):
    apcraig

  • Suggest PR reviewers from list in the column to the right.

  • Please copy the PR test results link or provide a summary of testing completed below.
    Cheyenne suite passes. (https://github.com/CICE-Consortium/Test-Results/wiki/icepack_by_hash_forks#dff7810461b7ffd0a91d80fcfa5c7874a3112490)

  • How much do the PR code changes differ from the unmodified code?

    • bit for bit
    • different at roundoff level
    • more substantial
  • Does this PR create or have dependencies on CICE or any other models?

    • Yes
    • No
  • Does this PR add any new test cases?

    • Yes
    • No
  • Is the documentation being updated? ("Documentation" includes information on the wiki or in the .rst files from doc/source/, which are used to create the online technical docs at https://readthedocs.org/projects/cice-consortium-cice/.)

    • Yes
    • No, does the documentation need to be updated at a later time?
      • Yes
      • No
  • Please provide any additional information or relevant details below:

  • Update clone of Test-Results page, add depth=1

  • Update documentation of optional arguments

  • Update interface documentation

  • Update version

- Update clone of Test-Results page, add depth=1
- Update documentation of optional arguments
- Update interface documentation
- Update version
@apcraig
Copy link
Contributor Author

apcraig commented Aug 4, 2022

@eclare108213, @dabail10 can you review when you get a chance. would like to merge and then get this into cice to continue pre release testing. thanks!

Copy link
Contributor

@eclare108213 eclare108213 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Not sure how we missed the snow-related use statements before, or why the code works without them. Thanks for fixing these and updating documentation, etc.


* We recommend doing all checks for optional arguments for an interface before returning just for completeness (as shown above)

* An argcheck parameter will control when to do the checks, 'none', 'first', or 'all' may be possible settings
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Is this argcheck parameter implemented anywhere now?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Not yet, but soon.

@apcraig
Copy link
Contributor Author

apcraig commented Aug 4, 2022

For the use statements in snow, I just moved them out of the subroutines to the top of the file, consistent with the rest of Icepack and to make them disappear from the Icepack interface documentation. It's not necessarily an ideal coding standard, but I think it's OK.

@apcraig apcraig merged commit 4fea17c into CICE-Consortium:main Aug 4, 2022
Copy link
Contributor

@dabail10 dabail10 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks great. Thanks for this.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants