The NOS storm surge team, including @SorooshMani-NOAA, @FariborzDaneshvar-NOAA, and myself, is currently setting up a new SCHISM run with nwm source relocation using the most up-to-date pyschism. We have encountered an issue where the nbfr parameter is set incorrectly in the bctides.in file when attempting to use all constituents.
Upon investigation, I have identified a bug in the nbfr function in bctides.py. The correct implementation should be:
The NOS storm surge team, including @SorooshMani-NOAA, @FariborzDaneshvar-NOAA, and myself, is currently setting up a new SCHISM run with
nwm source relocation
using the most up-to-date pyschism. We have encountered an issue where thenbfr
parameter is set incorrectly in the bctides.in file when attempting to use all constituents.Upon investigation, I have identified a bug in the
nbfr
function in bctides.py. The correct implementation should be:return len(self.tides.get_active_forcing_constituents())
Instead of the current implementation:
return len(self.tides.get_active_potential_constituents())