From bcd684b4e95cda1ac47ee6a118002849fad65c95 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Samuel Levis Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2025 11:45:46 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] Finalize ChangeLog --- doc/ChangeLog | 12 ++++++++---- 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/doc/ChangeLog b/doc/ChangeLog index fffcc6bca5..95477f1d61 100644 --- a/doc/ChangeLog +++ b/doc/ChangeLog @@ -1,12 +1,11 @@ =============================================================== Tag name: tmp-241219.n03.ctsm5.3.016 Originator(s): slevis (Samuel Levis,UCAR/TSS,303-665-1310) -Date: Wed 08 Jan 2025 06:09:41 PM MST +Date: Thu 09 Jan 2025 11:39:37 AM MST One-line Summary: Bug fix for izumi nag tests to pass Purpose and description of changes ---------------------------------- - Allocation statements should have been (0:mxpft) instead of (mxpft). I introduced the bug in a small refactor requested in #2917. @@ -30,7 +29,7 @@ Does this tag change answers significantly for any of the following physics conf Bugs fixed ---------- List of CTSM issues fixed (include CTSM Issue # and description) [one per line]: -Fixes #2924 + Fixes #2924 Notes of particular relevance for developers: --------------------------------------------- @@ -49,7 +48,7 @@ Testing summary: izumi ------- OK If the tag used for baseline comparisons was NOT the previous tag, note that here: - derecho used tmp-241219.n02.ctsm5.3.016 + derecho used tmp-241219.n02.ctsm5.3.016 (i.e. the previous tag) izumi used ctsm5.3.016 because it was the best available baseline Answer changes @@ -62,6 +61,11 @@ Changes answers relative to baseline: No but read caveat. - what platforms/compilers: izumi; only because I compared to ctsm5.3.016 - nature of change: same as in the tmp-241219.n02.ctsm5.3.016 tag + Note: Also on izumi I see the following failure in all the tests that 'failed to initialize' + that I had to go back to build and run, whether with ./case.build or ./create_test. For example: + FAIL ERP_D_Ld5_P48x1.f10_f10_mg37.I2000Clm50BgcCru.izumi_nag.clm-noFUN_flexCN BASELINE ctsm5.3.016: ERROR CPRNC failed to open files + I am aware that others have also seen this behavior. + Other details ------------- Pull Requests that document the changes (include PR ids):