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

Pest Control File variables PHIREDSWH and NRELPAR not being correctly read into PESTPP-GLM #296

Open
sjepsen395 opened this issue May 23, 2024 · 2 comments

Comments

@sjepsen395
Copy link

Hello PEST++ Team,

I noticed a problem with the reading of 2 variables in the Control Data Section of a PEST Control File for PESTPP-GLM v5.2.7. When I used the following "traditional PEST" format in the PEST Control File, the 2 variables PHIREDSWH and NRELPAR were read correctly according to input echoed in the the .rec file:

  • control data
    restart estimation
    668 114253 15 0 35
    1 2 double point 1
    10.0 -3.0 0.3 0.03 8
    2.222 2.222 0.001
    0.05
    0 0.0075 4 4 0.0075 4
    0 0 0

On the other hand, when I defined pertinent PESTPP-GLM variables in a "* control data keyword" section following the new "enhanced" format, the variables were not read correctly according to input echoed in the .rec file:

  • control data keyword
    pestmode estimation
    npar 668
    relparmax 2.222
    facparmax 2.222
    facorig 0.001
    phiredswh 0.05
    noptmax 0
    phiredstp 0.0075
    nphistp 4
    nphinored 4
    relparstp 0.0075
    nrelpar 4

PHIREDSWH was incorrectly set to 0.1 and NRELPAR was incorrectly set to 3. I wonder if I am entering the new enhanced format incorrectly (thus being ignored by PESTPP-GLM), or if there might be a bug? I prefer the new "enhanced format" but for now will use the "traditional PEST" format.

Thanks,
Steve

@jtwhite79
Copy link
Collaborator

you are correct - those two args were not being processed from the control data keyword section (just lazy on my part - didnt think anyone was using them!). They will added for the next release.

@sjepsen395
Copy link
Author

Great, thanks! I'll feel better knowing they are read even if I don't use them.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants