Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add new 0.66 degree MOM6 grid into make_bcs #712

Merged
merged 9 commits into from
Mar 6, 2023

Conversation

yvikhlya
Copy link
Contributor

@yvikhlya yvikhlya commented Mar 2, 2023

and return back old 360x210 MOM6 grid in case someone wants to run it with old land.

@yvikhlya yvikhlya added enhancement New feature or request 0 diff structural Structural changes to repository that are zero-diff labels Mar 2, 2023
@yvikhlya yvikhlya requested a review from a team as a code owner March 2, 2023 20:13
@yvikhlya yvikhlya self-assigned this Mar 2, 2023
@yvikhlya yvikhlya requested a review from a team March 2, 2023 20:33
@gmao-rreichle
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks, @yvikhlya. Looks ok to me but...

  1. @biljanaorescanin should test the revised make_bcs script just to make sure it works, if you haven't done this already
  2. cleanup and reorganization of files in ./Raster (make_bcs) #707 also touches the make_bcs script by moving it into a subdir as part of the cleanup. We need to be careful about merging the two PRs in the right order.
  3. We are working on py versions of the make_bcs script, which are already on the develop branch and will need to be updated with the changes in the present PR. @weiyuan-jiang will need to take care of this.

Once item 1. is addressed, I'm happy to approve the PR. We'll then need to work with @sdrabenh to merge #707 and the present PR in the correct order (item 2.). We don't have to wait for item 3 since the py versions aren't ready for prime time anyway, but we have to remember to make the changes sooner rather than later.

@sanAkel sanAkel added the Contingent - DNA These changes are contingent on other PRs (DNA=do not approve) label Mar 3, 2023
@sanAkel
Copy link
Contributor

sanAkel commented Mar 3, 2023

@yvikhlya Will either add your river routing patch script to this PR or provide a link to it (by posting it elsewhere)?

Once you do it, I'll take the DNA label off- because without, nobody can reproduce the set up.

Thanks!

@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Mar 3, 2023

Label error. Requires exactly 0 of: Contingent - DNA, Needs Lead Approval, Contingent -- Do Not Approve. Found: enhancement, Contingent - DNA, 0 diff structural

@yvikhlya
Copy link
Contributor Author

yvikhlya commented Mar 3, 2023

I use this script
https://github.com/GEOS-ESM/GEOS_Util/blob/main/coupled_diagnostics/g5lib/src/reroute_runoff/reroute.py
to fix runoff, but I would strongly discourage to take it as any sort of fix to runoff problem, but rather as "do not use it again" hack to let us proceed with our tests asap. We still have to fix runoff issue a proper way (which is independent from this PR issue).

@sanAkel
Copy link
Contributor

sanAkel commented Mar 3, 2023

I use this script https://github.com/GEOS-ESM/GEOS_Util/blob/main/coupled_diagnostics/g5lib/src/reroute_runoff/reroute.py to fix runoff, but I would strongly discourage to take it as any sort of fix to runoff problem, but rather as "do not use it again" hack to let us proceed with our tests asap. We still have to fix runoff issue a proper way (which is independent from this PR issue).

Thank you @yvikhlya

And for the record the

We still have to fix runoff issue a proper way (which is independent from this PR issue).

is: #681

@sanAkel sanAkel removed the Contingent - DNA These changes are contingent on other PRs (DNA=do not approve) label Mar 3, 2023
@biljanaorescanin
Copy link
Contributor

@gmao-rreichle I've tested both options (T3MOM6 and T2MOM6) and they will produce whole set of boundary conditions. I presume science was tested by @sanAkel and @yvikhlya and resulting boundary conditions are what they expect to get.

@sanAkel
Copy link
Contributor

sanAkel commented Mar 6, 2023

@gmao-rreichle I've tested both options (T3MOM6 and T2MOM6) and they will produce whole set of boundary conditions. I presume science was tested by @sanAkel and @yvikhlya and resulting boundary conditions are what they expect to get.

No! I haven't yet tested.

@sdrabenh,
I recommend NOT to pull it until I finish ⬆️

@sdrabenh
Copy link
Collaborator

sdrabenh commented Mar 6, 2023

Note, this PR is showing runtime failures with CircleCi. Has this PR been run or could this be an automated test issue? @mathomp4 is this a Ci data issue?

ln -s $MAKE_BCS_INPUT_DIR/ocean/MOM5/360x200 data/MOM5/360x200
ln -s $MAKE_BCS_INPUT_DIR/ocean/MOM5/720x410 data/MOM5/720x410
ln -s $MAKE_BCS_INPUT_DIR/ocean/MOM5/1440x1080 data/MOM5/1440x1080
ln -s $MAKE_BCS_INPUT_DIR/ocean/MOM6/72x36 data/MOM6/72x36
ln -s $MAKE_BCS_INPUT_DIR/ocean/MOM6/360x210 data/MOM6/360x210
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

#712 (comment)

@sdrabenh, I suspect reason for failure(s) is that it cannot read there new files. Right @mathomp4 ?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Now, I intend to check it all myself. I have queued it, but have no ETA when I'll get to it.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@sanAkel sorry just saw your comment. That is what I suspect

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Boundary Conditions package would have failed @sanAkel if files weren't there.
So files were at location when I was running and are still there.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@sanAkel @sdrabenh I don't think it's that. It's dying in run so it gets through the scripting.

My first guess is that the CI does a checkout-if-exists step and so it's not just picking up this branch but also the yv/feature/mom6-0.66deg in GEOS_OceanGridComp as seen in GEOS-ESM/GEOS_OceanGridComp#21

That PR from @yvikhlya is based on develop in the Ocean GC repo and in there line 653 (which is where the model is dying) is crapping out on:

       call MAPL_GetPointer(EXPORT, T_Freeze_e, 'T_Freeze', _RC)

If that line requires, say, a new mom6 tag or something, it's possible the CI is just "unhappy" until the latest Ocean/MOM6 combo is brought into GEOSgcm fixture itself.

So this might be a case of we have to superpower merge it in because of CI issues.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@sanAkel It's just really a consequence of the CI scripting trying to be smart. This seems "safe" to pull in because, as @gmao-rreichle says below, it's touching a script my CI does not care about. But the yv/feature/mom6-0.66deg branch in Ocean GC doesn't quite run without some change elsewhere.

If you, @sdrabenh, @biljanaorescanin, and @gmao-rreichle are fine with this, I can power it in with admin powers.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

But the yv/feature/mom6-0.66deg branch in Ocean GC doesn't quite run without some change elsewhere.

It touches only several configs. How can this affect the build?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If you, @sdrabenh, @biljanaorescanin, and @gmao-rreichle are fine with this, I can power it in with admin powers.

I'm generally ok with the changes but we MUST coordinate this PR with #707. At this moment, #707 is ready, and I assume @sdrabenh will merge it first. Then we have to modify this PR in response. So please refrain from using superpowers unless we have this sorted, so we're not inadvertently merging a conflicting set of PRs.

Copy link
Contributor

@sanAkel sanAkel Mar 6, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I go with @gmao-rreichle - his word be the final one!

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If you, @sdrabenh, @biljanaorescanin, and @gmao-rreichle are fine with this, I can power it in with admin powers.

I'm generally ok with the changes but we MUST coordinate this PR with #707. At this moment, #707 is ready, and I assume @sdrabenh will merge it first. Then we have to modify this PR in response. So please refrain from using superpowers unless we have this sorted, so we're not inadvertently merging a conflicting set of PRs.

@gmao-rreichle Please put a DNA label

@gmao-rreichle
Copy link
Contributor

@sdrabenh: This PR only touches the "make_bcs" script, which isn't exercised in any of the CircleCI tests. Also, keep in mind that this PR will need updating after you merge #707, which moves "make_bcs" into a new location.

@sdrabenh
Copy link
Collaborator

sdrabenh commented Mar 6, 2023

Thanks @mathomp4 . If @gmao-rreichle @biljanaorescanin @sanAkel @yvikhlya are fine with this PR, I have no objection to @mathomp4 powering it through.

@yvikhlya
Copy link
Contributor Author

yvikhlya commented Mar 6, 2023

ln -s $MAKE_BCS_INPUT_DIR/ocean/MOM6/360x210 data/MOM6/360x210

....

call MAPL_GetPointer(EXPORT, T_Freeze_e, 'T_Freeze', _RC)

None of the above was introduced by yv/feature/mom6-0.66deg PRs.

@yvikhlya
Copy link
Contributor Author

yvikhlya commented Mar 6, 2023

Thanks @mathomp4 . If @gmao-rreichle @biljanaorescanin @sanAkel @yvikhlya are fine with this PR, I have no objection to @mathomp4 powering it through.

Still need to do 360x210 clean up. Wait for one more commit please.

Edit: Done.

@gmao-rreichle gmao-rreichle added the Contingent - DNA These changes are contingent on other PRs (DNA=do not approve) label Mar 6, 2023
@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Mar 6, 2023

Label error. Requires exactly 0 of: Contingent - DNA, Needs Lead Approval, Contingent -- Do Not Approve. Found: enhancement, Contingent - DNA, 0 diff structural

@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Mar 6, 2023

Label error. Requires exactly 0 of: Contingent - DNA, Needs Lead Approval, Contingent -- Do Not Approve. Found: enhancement, Contingent - DNA, 0 diff structural

@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Mar 6, 2023

Label error. Requires exactly 0 of: Contingent - DNA, Needs Lead Approval, Contingent -- Do Not Approve. Found: enhancement, Contingent - DNA, 0 diff structural

@gmao-rreichle
Copy link
Contributor

@yvikhlya, @biljanaorescanin, @sdrabenh, @mathomp4:
I merged develop into Yury's branch through a command-line merge. This didn't even require explicitly resolving any conflicts. Git was apparently smart enough to recognize that we used "git mv" on "make_bcs" in our reorganization (#707) and then simply moved Yury's modified "make_bcs" into the new "./makebcs" subdir. Not sure why the merge on github indicated a conflict and complained about write permission for Biljana.
I added one more commit with some cleanup, see inline comment above.
This is now ok with me, and I'm happy for Matt to super-approve.
cc: @sanAkel

@gmao-rreichle gmao-rreichle removed the Contingent - DNA These changes are contingent on other PRs (DNA=do not approve) label Mar 6, 2023
@mathomp4 mathomp4 self-requested a review March 6, 2023 20:17
Copy link
Member

@mathomp4 mathomp4 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Re-approve

@mathomp4 mathomp4 dismissed sanAkel’s stale review March 6, 2023 20:18

Rolf has said all is good.

@mathomp4 mathomp4 merged commit b513561 into develop Mar 6, 2023
@mathomp4 mathomp4 deleted the yv/feature/mom6-0.66deg branch March 6, 2023 20:43
@sanAkel
Copy link
Contributor

sanAkel commented Mar 7, 2023

FYI: @danholdaway, @Dooruk

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
0 diff structural Structural changes to repository that are zero-diff enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

6 participants