Conversation
|
@grantfirl These changes look good to me. However, the results do not agree with the baselines. |
Yes, I was just checking that. The baselines are out-of-date. @hertneky @scrasmussen @mkavulich Could one of you upload the baselines from https://github.com/NCAR/ccpp-scm/actions/runs/14176036114? |
The artifacts from https://github.com/NCAR/ccpp-scm/actions/runs/14316552427 and https://github.com/NCAR/ccpp-scm/actions/runs/14176036114 should be identical. 14176036114 is where the changes occurred though. |
hertneky
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Changes look good to me.
I refreshed the baselines on mowhak and reran the RTs - looks good with no differences like before.
Thanks for taking this one @grantfirl as I would have needed help from you anyways for applying the changes from the fv3atm CCPP_driver.F90. I am guessing the same changes (adding group) are not needed for the ccpp_physics_timestep_init/finalize calls - likely not group specific for SCM.
Thanks for the baselines refresh. The only reason that the groups need to be called individually in the run phase is that interstitial_X_reset schemes that were removed only had run phases for resetting interstitial variables. The other phases can continue to be called for the entire suite because nothing needs to be done between groups for those phases for the SCM. |
98e95e7 to
58d0c6a
Compare
SOURCE: @grantfirl
DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES:
phys_tsgroup for time-split schemes andphys_psgroup for process-split schemesccpp_physics_runcalls in scm.F90 and scm_time_integration.F90 to call the interstitial%X_reset subroutines before radiation and phys_ps groups; use separate calls toccpp_physics_runfor radiation, phys_ps, and phys_ts groupsISSUE: None
ASSOCIATED PRs:
TESTS CONDUCTED: CI RTs
This PR catches the NCAR:main branch up with changes from the ufs-community:ufs/dev branch.
Associated ufs/dev PR:
Associated fv3atm PR:
Associated NCAR PR:
REGRESSION TEST CHANGES: None