Add intel snapshot testing #343
Labels
enhancement
New feature or request
Comments
Merged
|
@cacraigucar has added intel snapshots for ZM so there's a start! |
peverwhee
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jan 10, 2025
Tag name (required for release branches): sima0_01_000 Originator(s): peverwhee Description (include the issue title, and the keyword ['closes', 'fixes', 'resolves'] followed by the issue number): Select correct field_data buffer (r8 vs r4) depending on the precision of the file in question closes #336 "History using REAL32 does not appear to write properly" closes #341 "History code always outputs an "empty" zero timestep" addresses #343 "Add intel snapshot testing" Describe any changes made to build system: n/a Describe any changes made to the namelist: n/a List any changes to the defaults for the input datasets (e.g. boundary datasets): n/a List all files eliminated and why: n/a List all files added and what they do: n/a List all existing files that have been modified, and describe the changes: (Helpful git command: `git diff --name-status development...<your_branch_name>`) M src/history/cam_hist_file.F90 - add r4 array and use that conditionally if precision is REAL32 - fix bug where the sample number was being incremented twice M test/existing-test-failures.txt - update test failures file to point to framework PR we're waiting on M cime_config/testdefs/testlist_cam.xml - remove intel snapshot tests since we don't currently have any intel snapshots! M cime_config/testdefs/testmods_dirs/cam/outfrq_kessler_derecho/user_nl_cam - remove min_difference that was added to get the intel test (that no longer exist) to run If there are new failures (compared to the `test/existing-test-failures.txt` file), have them OK'd by the gatekeeper, note them here, and add them to the file. If there are baseline differences, include the test and the reason for the diff. What is the nature of the change? Roundoff? derecho/intel/aux_sima: All DIFF because of the nstep=0 bug, but confirmed that the results were b4b with a slice of the baselines (removing the erroneous nstep=0 sample). These are the first "correct" baselines for cam7 derecho/gnu/aux_sima: All DIFF because of the nstep=0 bug, but confirmed that the results were b4b with a slice of the baselines (removing the erroneous nstep=0 sample). These are the first "correct" baselines for cam7 If this changes climate describe any run(s) done to evaluate the new climate in enough detail that it(they) could be reproduced: CAM-SIMA date used for the baseline comparison tests if different than latest: --------- Co-authored-by: Courtney Peverley <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
What is the feature/what would you like to discuss?
We currently only have GNU snapshots for our snapshot testing (null dycore, 2 timestep tests).
Eventually, we want to have intel tests as well, which will mean:
Is there anyone in particular you want to be part of this conversation?
No response
Will this change (regression test) answers?
No
Will you be implementing this enhancement yourself?
Any Software Engineer can do this
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: