Minor changes to SLWF+C logic in parameters.F90 #205
Conversation
…ky situations when combining SCDM with SLWF+C
| @@ -2445,7 +2449,7 @@ function get_smearing_index(string, keyword) | |||
|
|
|||
| end function get_smearing_index | |||
|
|
|||
| !=================================================================== | |||
| !=================================================================== | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Interesting that this indentation changed... I wasn't expecting this to happen.
src/parameters.F90
Outdated
| if (selective_loc .and. slwf_constrain .and. allocated(proj_site)) & | ||
| write (stdout, '(a)') 'No slwf_centres block requested. Desired centres for SLWF same as projection centres' | ||
| ! Allocate array for constrained centres | ||
| call param_get_centre_constraints |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Shouldn't there be a check that selective_loc is true? The function internally accesses variables that are now allocated only if (selected_loc) above
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hi @giovannipizzi, I changed it so it is easier to follow. I don't think I need a check on selective_loc, since slwf_constrain is true only if selective_loc is also true.
… This makes the logic even more trivial
|
Thanks for clarifying. make me feel that there is at least one case where the function is called and |
|
Yes, I think that was the case in my previous commit. It should be OK now, all the tests have passed. |
|
Seems fine to me. @giovannipizzi - I think your concern has been addressed, and this PR can now be accepted? |
|
Yes, I had checked it when the tests were still running. Now I merged it! |
Minor changes to SLWF+C logic in parameters.F90
to better handle tricky situations when combining SCDM with SLWF+C