Open aidanheerdegen opened 3 years ago
There was confusion from someone defining a perturbation. They got this error:
assertion failed: forcing_parse_field: wrong number of fields in perturbation definition, should be 5.
even though the perturbation definition seemed fine:
{ "filename": "INPUT/RYF.rlds.1990_1991.nc", "fieldname": "rlds", "cname": "lwfld_ai", "perturbations": [ { "type": "offset", "dimension": "temporal", "value": "INPUT/RYF.rlds.1990_1991_wcwc10.nc", "calendar": "experiment" } ] },
The issue was a missing comment field, which is now mandatory, but the check for the comment is after this section https://github.com/COSIMA/libaccessom2/blob/a227a616fac7a7d4795d2ebcca750292b6004683/libforcing/src/forcing_config.F90#L331-L333 so never gets flagged, and the user does not know why their perturbation definition is incorrect.
comment
I believe moving the assert block which checks for a comment to the beginning of the loop (say line 194) makes sense, and the rest of the logic can remain as-is.
assert
There was confusion from someone defining a perturbation. They got this error:
even though the perturbation definition seemed fine:
The issue was a missing
comment
field, which is now mandatory, but the check for the comment is after this section https://github.com/COSIMA/libaccessom2/blob/a227a616fac7a7d4795d2ebcca750292b6004683/libforcing/src/forcing_config.F90#L331-L333 so never gets flagged, and the user does not know why their perturbation definition is incorrect.I believe moving the
assert
block which checks for a comment to the beginning of the loop (say line 194) makes sense, and the rest of the logic can remain as-is.