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

back-compatibility with old forcing.json format #75

Open
aekiss opened this issue Jul 26, 2022 · 5 comments
Open

back-compatibility with old forcing.json format #75

aekiss opened this issue Jul 26, 2022 · 5 comments

Comments

@aekiss
Copy link
Contributor

aekiss commented Jul 26, 2022

The current libaccessom2 master has breaking changes to the forcing.json format, in particular a451a7f and 467e3e2 which were made to support ERA5.

Consequently the standard ACCESS-OM2 configurations are incompatible with the latest libaccessom2 - see COSIMA/access-om2#262.

It would be much nicer to support both the old and new formats. This backwards compatibility would probably require a version number in forcing.json (which would signify the original format if absent).

@aekiss aekiss changed the title back-compatability with old forcing.json format back-compatibility with old forcing.json format Jul 26, 2022
@aekiss
Copy link
Contributor Author

aekiss commented Aug 5, 2022

Runs with a standard config fail with the latest libaccessom2 70e2c46 with message

assertion failed: No forcing_product_name found in forcing config.

This assertion was added in a451a7f.

But weirdly, these configs work with 0ab7295 despite it being newer than a451a7f and 467e3e2 - see https://github.com/COSIMA/libaccessom2/commits/master

@aekiss
Copy link
Contributor Author

aekiss commented Aug 6, 2022

Ah, I see - a451a7f and 467e3e2 were on branch 242-era5-support, which was later merged with 0ab7295.

We should fast-forward branch 242-era5-support to 70e2c46 (the current head of master), and change master to point to 0ab7295 so that current configs will work with it.

242-era5-support shouldn't be merged into master until we sort out back-compatibility, at the very least providing a script to convert old forcing.json files to the new format.

@aekiss
Copy link
Contributor Author

aekiss commented Aug 8, 2022

I fast-forward branch 242-era5-support to 70e2c46 via

git fetch
git checkout master
git pull
git submodule update --init --recursive
git checkout 242-era5-support
git pull
git submodule update --init --recursive
git merge master
git submodule update --init --recursive
git push

(probably didn't need all the git submodule update --init --recursive)

Still need to change master to point to 0ab7295

@aekiss
Copy link
Contributor Author

aekiss commented Aug 8, 2022

@micaeljtoliveira, @nichannah, @aidanheerdegen, @russfiedler, @penguian, just a heads-up that I'm about to reset the commit that master points to, via

git checkout master
git reset --hard 0ab7295
git push --force

so you might notice some weirdness next time you pull.

@aekiss aekiss mentioned this issue Aug 8, 2022
@aekiss
Copy link
Contributor Author

aekiss commented Aug 9, 2022

master and 242-era5-support are now separate, divergent branches

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

No branches or pull requests

1 participant