jwallwork23 commented 1 month ago

Pass `ModelArray` to `Xios.write`, rather than array of `double`s

Fixes #544

Task List

[x] Defined the tests that specify a complete and functioning change (It may help to create a design specification & test specification)
[x] Implemented the source code change that satisfies the tests
[ ] Documented the feature by providing worked example
[ ] Updated the README or other documentation
[ ] Completed the pre-Request checklist below

Change Description

In the existing implementation of the Xios class, its write method accepts a C-style array of doubles, along with its dimensions in each direction. The approach adopted here - better in line with Nextsim's approach - is to instead pass a ModelArray, which knows about both the data and dimensions. I think this change is fairly uncontroversial.

While working on this last week, @timspainNERSC said it would be preferable if runtime configuration of Nextsim-DG would not required when using Xios functionality. To address this, the changes here also make the Xios class independent of Nextsim-DG. Is this acceptable @TomMelt, or are there other reasons that we should keep the configuration code in that we aren't aware of?

Test Description

@timspainNERSC also said it would be preferable if the Xios tests are built without linking to nextsimlib, to keep them separate. As such, the Xios test build has been reworked. In the current setup, the tests build and all pass. However, the latest commit (2e83114b1fd9efda9a0b99ca7900ce0ff8d0d8a1) is a temporary hack to get the Xios test to build correctly. @TomMelt do you have any insight on how to avoid this?

Pre-Request Checklist

[x] The requirements of this pull request are fully captured in an issue or design specification and are linked and summarised in the description of this PR
[x] No new warnings are generated
[ ] The documentation has been updated (or an issue has been created to track the corresponding change)
[ ] Methods and Tests are commented such that they can be understood without having to obtain additional context
[ ] This PR/Issue is labelled as a bug/feature/enhancement/breaking change
[ ] File dates have been updated to reflect modification date
[ ] This change conforms to the conventions described in the README

jwallwork23 commented 1 month ago

Note that I had to turn off clang-format to get the includes in the right order in the Xios test. (88ddbceeb12fe643251e54e156acc49b0ecc5ba3)

jwallwork23 commented 3 weeks ago

This PR is out of date and could do with splitting into separate PRs for the different issues it addresses. Closing now.

nextsimhub / nextsimdg