search

NorESMhub / BLOM

Bergen Layered Ocean Model
GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0
16 stars 25 forks source link

Move main sediment parameters to mo_param_bgc #297

Closed jmaerz closed 11 months ago

jmaerz commented 11 months ago

Hi @JorgSchwinger and @TomasTorsvik , I moved most sediment parameters to mo_param_bgc (with the exceptions of calfa, oplfa, orgfa, clafa that are calculated from parameters set in mo_param_bgc - if you wish, I can also transfer them). In 1D, it looks bit-identical - but I will also set up runs on betzy to test it there. Closes #296

jmaerz commented 11 months ago

Hi @TomasTorsvik and @JorgSchwinger , I checked the restructured branch against master on betzy (as done for the water column restructuring) and get bit-identical results.

mvertens commented 11 months ago

@TomasTorsvik @jmaerz - would it be okay to start the master tagging here? What should we use to start with? blom_v1.0.0?

jmaerz commented 11 months ago

Dear @mvertens , @TomasTorsvik and @JorgSchwinger wrt to the tagging: We are almost there to have a still CMIP6 compatible, but clean(er) code version on the iHAMOCC side. After this PR, Joerg wants to take care a bit about the indentations, use statements etc in iHAMOCC. Maybe with this cleaned version, a blom_v1.0.0 tag state would be nice? - but I don't have strong opinions on it. So from my side, either way is fine.

mvertens commented 11 months ago

@jmaerz - thanks for the update. I agree that starting with a cleaned up version sounds fine. Can we have a chat about indentations throughout hamocc when you start? I think we can automate a lot of this with emacs and have it standardized throughout the code if you all think that would be useful.

jmaerz commented 11 months ago

:-D - this is a question to @JorgSchwinger - he has particular opinions on it (and I don't work with emacs). But I am happy to learn!

JorgSchwinger commented 11 months ago

@mvertens @TomasTorsvik @jmaerz

Regarding the tags: What would be the relation between these automated tags and our releases? We have currently tagged releases v1.0.0 to v1.3.0 and we are working towards v1.4.0 (the last CMIP6 backwards compatible release). So I would find it confusing to have the automated tag v1.0.0 associated with our release v1.4.0 - is there a reasonable way to synchronize this?

Regarding automated indentations, I am a bit skeptical about it, because I really like to use vertical alignment to improve (in my opinion) code readability. I find automatically indented code often difficult to read because things that belong together logically are displaced. But I might be the only one with this kind of reservation... (I do not use emacs a lot though)

jmaerz commented 11 months ago

Then it would be at least logical to start with blom_v1.4.0, once you (@JorgSchwinger) have cleaned the code. But maybe we should continue this discussion in #295.

jmaerz commented 11 months ago

I copied the discussion points on tagging to #295.