Closed gold2718 closed 2 years ago
From our previous conversation, my understanding was that optional Fortran variables may be omitted from metadata tables, but they can be present. It's a hardcoded choice which flavor of a scheme to run.
Oops, bad communication. capgen does work this way, I added a test in capgen_test to verify that an optional
Fortran variable which is included in the metadata table is handled properly.
Do you think the improved error handler will be ready before we transition the UFS to capgen?
I have not prioritized this work because it would delay unification readiness. We need to re-evaluate the schedule if you want to add this.
I think at least one more Python file needs the Python3 shebang:
Yep, I already found this by testing on a different machine (it turns out that the machine I was using had python ==> python3 so I did not see the problem. Unfortunately, in trying to clean up all this test stuff, I ended up touching a bunch of files so the PR grew.
In general: This PR is extremely difficult if not impossible to review in a reasonable amount of time.
I agree with this comment and am happy to try and make shorter PRs. However, if we agree that I will do this, I need to go in and re-estimate all the task hours as a PR does take me a significant amount of time. Your call.
In general: This PR is extremely difficult if not impossible to review in a reasonable amount of time.
I agree with this comment and am happy to try and make shorter PRs. However, if we agree that I will do this, I need to go in and re-estimate all the task hours as a PR does take me a significant amount of time. Your call.
It's a judgement call, I think we need to be pragmatic. Maybe along the lines "I can split this up easily without spending a lot of time, so let's to it" and "This would be a lot of overhead, let's keep it together".
I ran the tests with your latest commit bbb668c on my Mac, and all tests passed.
@gold2718 I am ok with this PR, do you want to make more changes or should I approve and merge? Thanks.
@gold2718 I am ok with this PR, do you want to make more changes or should I approve and merge? Thanks.
From my point of view, it is okay to merge if you are comfortable with the current state. I can try to work in future PRs.
Refactor capgen branch
User interface changes?: Yes
--kind-type
argument replaces--kind-phys
and takes a list of model kinds.Fixes: [Github issue #s] addresses #329 addresses #378 addresses #403 fixes #408
Testing: