Closed bishtgautam closed 2 years ago
I personally like the idea of adding the FATES suffix/prefix to all FATES history variables. It makes things simple by preventing duplication of output variables with the host model. My only concern is that users will have to change their scripts. Good scripts don't have hard-coded values though...?
Agreed that adding FATES suffix/prefix will be useful as the users will know whether they are FATES outputs or HLM outputs.
Ryan, what scripts are you referring to?
Yours Chonggang On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 12:03 PM Ryan Knox notifications@github.com wrote:
I personally like the idea of adding the FATES suffix/prefix to all FATES history variables. It makes things simple by preventing duplication of output variables with the host model. My only concern is that users will not have to change their scripts. Good scripts don't have hard-coded values though...?
— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/NGEET/fates/issues/385#issuecomment-391085772, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AH2Yx9TNlP42MA9So6ZTpiFSTEOSqMHIks5t1FLigaJpZM4UHy3n .
None specifically @xuchongang . I think most people have some of their own analysis scripts (matlab, R, python, etc) floating around somewhere.
FATES_ is now in all history output. Re-open if necessary
While making ELM code modification regarding history output variables, I found that
FATES_
prefix is not added to FATES variables in output file.