make variables using filename_base consistant in length

[jedwards4b]

filename_base was declared with length 255, however it was then used with variables of length 80 creating an error that was difficult to track down. This makes the length of these variables consistant, it is needed for the proper naming of CIME testcase files. See issue ufs-community/ufs-mrweather-app#49

[junwang-noaa]

How is the "14" defined? This could be confusing and error-prone when the interpolation method is changed, such as "first_order_conservative". It seems a temporary fix, from that point of view, I would suggest just setting the length of all the character strings to "ESMF_MAXSTR". Not sure the reason to have the filenames exactly 255 characters. If we do want that, we need a different fix. Basically the filenames are the local file names, if developers want to write to a different directory, they can set that up in script level.

[jedwards4b]

agreed and done.

[junwang-noaa]

Hi, Dusan, Here is a fix from Jeff on model public release code to use the consistent string length for model output file names. There should be no impact on the current public release RT. Would you please test it and commit to the public release code? Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you! Jun

…

On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 7:16 AM jedwards4b ***@***.***> wrote: ***@***.**** commented on this pull request. ------------------------------ In fv3_cap.F90 <#43 (comment)>: > @@ -74,7 +75,7 @@ module fv3gfs_cap_mod type(ESMF_GridComp) :: fcstComp type(ESMF_State) :: fcstState - character(len=80), allocatable :: fcstItemNameList(:) + character(len=max_filename_len+14),allocatable :: fcstItemNameList(:) agreed and done. — You are receiving this because your review was requested. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#43?email_source=notifications&email_token=AI7D6TOOE5NOMZN5QTWZ6BLQ535CFA5CNFSM4KG3W6VKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFWFIHK3DMKJSXC5LFON2FEZLWNFSXPKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOCR2HWMA#discussion_r366844849>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AI7D6TOBDC6RE77ATVFUNCLQ535CFANCNFSM4KG3W6VA> .

[DusanJovic-NOAA]

@jedwards4b, I'm getting the syntax error:

Scanning dependencies of target io                                               
[ 75%] Building Fortran object FV3/io/CMakeFiles/io.dir/module_fv3_io_def.F90.o  
/scratch2/NCEPDEV/fv3-cam/Dusan.Jovic/ufs/public/ufs-weather-model/FV3/io/module_fv3_io_def.F90(10): error #5082: Syntax error, found '::' when expecting one of: => ( :
  use esmf, only    :: esmf_maxstr                                               
--------------------^

The line 10 in module_fv3_io_def.F90 should be:

diff --git a/io/module_fv3_io_def.F90 b/io/module_fv3_io_def.F90
index 74b5b73..6d70681 100644
--- a/io/module_fv3_io_def.F90
+++ b/io/module_fv3_io_def.F90
@@ -7,7 +7,8 @@
 !
 !------------------------------------------------------------------------
 !
-  use esmf, only    :: esmf_maxstr
+  use esmf, only : esmf_maxstr
+
   implicit none
 !
   integer           :: num_pes_fcst

Please update the code and push to this branch.
Thanks.

[jedwards4b]

Sorry - it's fixed now.

Jim

[jedwards4b]

@climbfuji Do I need to take further action to get the ufs-weather-model updated?

[DusanJovic-NOAA]

@jedwards4b You can submit a ufs-weather-model (ufs_public_release branch) PR with fv3atm submodule pointing to 1e3cdc1

[junwang-noaa]

Jeff, Dusan looked your pull request and noticed that the ufs-weather-model pull request corresponding to this change is missing. Without it we don't know if the code is actually tested by the developer. Generally we don't accept pull request without proof of testing(RT log files updated in the ufs-weather-model repo). Sorry I did not check that pull request assuming that part is done. So for this commit, Dusan/Dom is very kind to offer doing testing, but if you have future updates, please test the fix first in the app level so that we know the fix is actually working. Thank you for your understanding! Jun

…

On Wednesday, January 15, 2020, jedwards4b ***@***.***> wrote: Sorry - it's fixed now. Jim — You are receiving this because your review was requested. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#43?email_source=notifications&email_token=AI7D6TMC4EQBE4J5Z3R2TRDQ54NAJA5CNFSM4KG3W6VKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOEJAQB7I#issuecomment-574685437>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AI7D6TMPFXMCKU3UDBG2RGDQ54NAJANCNFSM4KG3W6VA> .

[jedwards4b]

Hi Jun, Are you suggesting that in order to submit a PR related to usage with the CIME build and test system I should be required to run the NOAA internal testing? Where is that documented? Eventually I would also expect that NOAA users submitting PR's would run the cime based testing. But again we are still putting that together, I think that we all need to be patient with each other while we work out the process. Thanks, Jim On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 8:01 AM junwang-noaa <[email protected]> wrote:

…

Jeff, Dusan looked your pull request and noticed that the ufs-weather-model pull request corresponding to this change is missing. Without it we don't know if the code is actually tested by the developer. Generally we don't accept pull request without proof of testing(RT log files updated in the ufs-weather-model repo). Sorry I did not check that pull request assuming that part is done. So for this commit, Dusan/Dom is very kind to offer doing testing, but if you have future updates, please test the fix first in the app level so that we know the fix is actually working. Thank you for your understanding! Jun On Wednesday, January 15, 2020, jedwards4b ***@***.***> wrote: > Sorry - it's fixed now. > > Jim > > — > You are receiving this because your review was requested. > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub > < #43?email_source=notifications&email_token=AI7D6TMC4EQBE4J5Z3R2TRDQ54NAJA5CNFSM4KG3W6VKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOEJAQB7I#issuecomment-574685437 >, > or unsubscribe > < https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AI7D6TMPFXMCKU3UDBG2RGDQ54NAJANCNFSM4KG3W6VA > > . > — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#43?email_source=notifications&email_token=ABOXUGBMMECKEEKZLYRN5QDQ54QL3A5CNFSM4KG3W6VKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOEJATIXQ#issuecomment-574698590>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABOXUGHNOSGHKB54BC5OQUDQ54QL3ANCNFSM4KG3W6VA> .

-- Jim Edwards CESM Software Engineer National Center for Atmospheric Research Boulder, CO

[junwang-noaa]

Totally understand. I appreciate your patience as we need to know some testing is done in order to maintain a working model for other release teams to work on it, we can't directly commit the user proposed code changes, reviewers may miss something. The test can be done on any machine the developers have access, test log files can be attached to the issue. This is actually for all developers including NOAA developers. Otherwise it will take longer time for the commit as we need to do internal testing to make the proposed code changes working properly. Thanks for your understanding. Jun

…

On Wednesday, January 15, 2020, jedwards4b ***@***.***> wrote: Hi Jun, Are you suggesting that in order to submit a PR related to usage with the CIME build and test system I should be required to run the NOAA internal testing? Where is that documented? Eventually I would also expect that NOAA users submitting PR's would run the cime based testing. But again we are still putting that together, I think that we all need to be patient with each other while we work out the process. Thanks, Jim On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 8:01 AM junwang-noaa ***@***.***> wrote: > Jeff, > > Dusan looked your pull request and noticed that the ufs-weather-model pull > request corresponding to this change is missing. Without it we don't know > if the code is actually tested by the developer. Generally we don't accept > pull request without proof of testing(RT log files updated in the > ufs-weather-model repo). Sorry I did not check that pull request assuming > that part is done. So for this commit, Dusan/Dom is very kind to offer > doing testing, but if you have future updates, please test the fix first in > the app level so that we know the fix is actually working. Thank you for > your understanding! > > > Jun > > On Wednesday, January 15, 2020, jedwards4b ***@***.***> > wrote: > > > Sorry - it's fixed now. > > > > Jim > > > > — > > You are receiving this because your review was requested. > > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub > > < > #43?email_source= notifications&email_token=AI7D6TMC4EQBE4J5Z3R2TRDQ54NAJA 5CNFSM4KG3W6VKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5 WW2ZLOORPWSZGOEJAQB7I#issuecomment-574685437 > >, > > or unsubscribe > > < > https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ AI7D6TMPFXMCKU3UDBG2RGDQ54NAJANCNFSM4KG3W6VA > > > > . > > > > — > You are receiving this because you were mentioned. > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub > <#43?email_source= notifications&email_token=ABOXUGBMMECKEEKZLYRN5QDQ54QL3A 5CNFSM4KG3W6VKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5 WW2ZLOORPWSZGOEJATIXQ#issuecomment-574698590>, > or unsubscribe > <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ ABOXUGHNOSGHKB54BC5OQUDQ54QL3ANCNFSM4KG3W6VA> > . > -- Jim Edwards CESM Software Engineer National Center for Atmospheric Research Boulder, CO — You are receiving this because your review was requested. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#43?email_source=notifications&email_token=AI7D6TPLAHJXPS232K6AEO3Q54RLZA5CNFSM4KG3W6VKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOEJAUIVQ#issuecomment-574702678>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AI7D6TN4V6POT2CCX4YKR7TQ54RLZANCNFSM4KG3W6VA> .

[jedwards4b]

As I said I am happy to run tests but you still haven't told me what tests or how to run them.
I have submitted PR ufs-community/ufs-weather-model#28 to bring this to the ufs-weather-model repository.

[climbfuji]

I am happy to run the tests on Cheyenne tonight and send @DusanJovic-NOAA the logs for updating the ufs-weather-model repo. Back to Boulder next week I am happy to "teach" folks how to run the regression tests on Cheyenne (straightforward as long as no new baselines are required, otherwise I will need to do that).

[jedwards4b]

@climbfuji This change which is critical for cime testing does not seem to be in 8394f36 of ufs-weather-model. This is why cime testing is failing on cheyenne.

[climbfuji]

I just checked the latest version of the release,

commit 4a1e67e86a7c316425b39a4c5668c5cc4ed110c7 (HEAD -> release/public-v1, tag: ufs-v1.0.0.beta01, origin/release/public-v1)

which has

heinzeller-lt:ufs-weather-model-ufs-public-release-20200208 dom.heinzeller$ grep -Rie 'fcstItemNameList' * | grep character
FV3/io/module_wrt_grid_comp.F90:      character(len=esmf_maxstr),allocatable    :: fcstItemNameList(:)
FV3/fv3_cap.F90:  character(len=esmf_maxstr),allocatable :: fcstItemNameList(:)

[jedwards4b]

Sorry - my fault, my update failed to recurse into subdirectories - but now I get another error:

error: Server does not allow request for unadvertised object db5b3b035cc022619b2b049fd87bd63dcd3dd9d7
Fetched in submodule path 'FV3/atmos_cubed_sphere', but it did not contain db5b3b035cc022619b2b049fd87bd63dcd3dd9d7. Direct fetching of that commit failed.

[climbfuji]

I would start from a fresh checkout ... github probably upset by the change in branch names (or you need to do recursive git submodule sync)

[jedwards4b]

it was actually the change in the remote source of atmos_cubed_sphere - fixed now.

[climbfuji]

Hopefully this fixes the runtime error on Cheyenne! I would like to move (back) to Intel 19.0.2 with the next version of the NCEPLIBS. Currently we are on alpha01, hope that the next version will be ready for being tagged as beta01.

[climbfuji]

If this fixes the issue on Cheyenne, can you please update the folks who were on the call just beforehand so that they are not under the assumption that the code is broken?

[jedwards4b]

If you are going to update compilers on cheyenne please consider intel/19.0.5 and gnu/9.1.0, yes I will update this mornings call attendees as soon as I complete testing.

[climbfuji]

Sure - 19.1.0.x was my target.

[jedwards4b]

@climbfuji I believe I now have the latest code in ~jedwards/sandboxes/mrweather.feb10/
I am still getting runtime failures from all tests.

[jedwards4b]

Lets continue this discussion here: ufs-community/ufs-mrweather-app#84