Repository navigation
ctsm5.4.068: Move CTSM tests from gx grids to t233 grid #4234
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
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Changes from all commits
9a646d4
a93976a
12e9f68
29335e3
c99aab1
bffdfe5
9acf995
5c193ca
1e98a68
3b5bf2f
7f91c76
ff5c1e6
cf8cd35
79bdacf
1b460ae
646074e
054c6bd
d347a00
a12c4ef
678c488
0ef0e4d
be2c45b
0dd5277
eb2d9b8
ac854d3
6c2e9ce
cd1e1a0
79d0155
d5d2314
0b28ede
19c0225
75c6999
11e6cf1
dbb2384
1d4d1b3
bf58b69
22f2933
d478f0f
d1a0a1f
23d885b
4b9b79b
24d8822
9223e3b
11728b5
04d6c22
84bd3bc
fb24203
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
|
slevis-lmwg marked this conversation as resolved.
Resolved
|
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ | |
| </phase> | ||
| </test> | ||
|
|
||
| <test name="SMS_Ld5.f09_g17.ISSP245Clm50BgcCrop.derecho_intel.clm-ciso_dec2050Start"> | ||
| <test name="SMS_Ld5.f09_t233.ISSP245Clm50BgcCrop.derecho_intel.clm-ciso_dec2050Start"> | ||
| <phase name="RUN"> | ||
| <status>FAIL</status> | ||
| <issue>#4165</issue> | ||
|
|
@@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ | |
| </test> | ||
|
|
||
| <!-- Hillslope test suite fails --> | ||
| <test name="SMS_D_Ld3.f10_f10_mg37.I1850Clm60Bgc.derecho_intel.clm-HillslopeFromFile"> | ||
| <test name="SMS_D_Ld3.f10_f10_mt201.I1850Clm60Bgc.derecho_intel.clm-HillslopeFromFile"> | ||
| <phase name="RUN"> | ||
| <status>FAIL</status> | ||
| <issue>#4169</issue> | ||
|
|
@@ -82,36 +82,29 @@ | |
| </phase> | ||
| </test> | ||
|
|
||
| <test name="ERP_P64x2_Ld396.f10_f10_mg37.IHistClm60Bgc.derecho_intel.clm-monthly--clm-matrixcnOn_ignore_warnings"> | ||
| <phase name="BASELINE"> | ||
| <status>FAIL</status> | ||
| <issue>#2619</issue> | ||
| <comment>This failure relates to the following REP failure.</comment> | ||
| </phase> | ||
| </test> | ||
| <test name="REP_P64x2_Ld396.f10_f10_mg37.IHistClm60Bgc.derecho_intel.clm-monthly--clm-matrixcnOn_ignore_warnings"> | ||
| <test name="REP_P64x2_Ld396.f10_f10_mt201.IHistClm60Bgc.derecho_intel.clm-monthly--clm-matrixcnOn_ignore_warnings"> | ||
| <phase name="COMPARE_base_rep2"> | ||
| <status>FAIL</status> | ||
| <issue>#2619</issue> | ||
| <comment>This failure relates to the preceding ERP failure.</comment> | ||
| </phase> | ||
| </test> | ||
| <test name="REP_P64x2_Ld396.f10_f10_mg37.IHistClm60Bgc.derecho_intel.clm-monthly--clm-matrixcnOn_ignore_warnings"> | ||
| <test name="REP_P64x2_Ld396.f10_f10_mt201.IHistClm60Bgc.derecho_intel.clm-monthly--clm-matrixcnOn_ignore_warnings"> | ||
| <phase name="BASELINE"> | ||
| <status>FAIL</status> | ||
| <issue>#2619</issue> | ||
| <comment>This failure relates to the preceding ERP failure.</comment> | ||
| </phase> | ||
| </test> | ||
|
|
||
| <test name="FUNITCTSM_P1x1.f10_f10_mg37.I2000Clm50Sp.izumi_intel"> | ||
| <test name="FUNITCTSM_P1x1.f10_f10_mt201.I2000Clm50Sp.izumi_intel"> | ||
| <phase name="RUN"> | ||
| <status>FAIL</status> | ||
| <issue>#3182</issue> | ||
| </phase> | ||
| </test> | ||
|
|
||
| <test name="ERP_D_P64x2_Ld10.f10_f10_mg37.I2000Clm60Bgc.derecho_intel.clm-Hillslope"> | ||
| <test name="ERP_D_P64x2_Ld10.f10_f10_mt201.I2000Clm60Bgc.derecho_intel.clm-Hillslope"> | ||
| <phase name="RUN"> | ||
| <status>FAIL</status> | ||
| <issue>#3788</issue> | ||
|
|
@@ -160,7 +153,7 @@ | |
| </phase> | ||
| </test> | ||
|
|
||
| <test name="ERP_P256x2_Ld30.f45_f45_mg37.I2000Clm60Fates.derecho_intel.clm-mimicsFatesCold"> | ||
| <test name="ERP_P256x2_Ld30.f45_f45_mt201.I2000Clm60Fates.derecho_intel.clm-mimicsFatesCold"> | ||
| <phase name="RUN"> | ||
| <status>FAIL</status> | ||
| <issue>#2261</issue> | ||
|
|
@@ -172,20 +165,6 @@ | |
| </phase> | ||
| </test> | ||
|
|
||
|
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. It's strange that these are passing now, as we didn't change mizuRoute. And actually looking at baselines it sometimes passes and sometimes doesn't. For example, see... grep NLCOMP $BASELINE/ctsm5.4.0[456]?/SMS_D_Ld5.5x5_amazon_rHDMA.I2000Clm60SpMizGs.derecho_intel.mizuroute-default/TestStatus | grep PASS
/glade/campaign/cgd/tss/ctsm_baselines/ctsm5.4.042/SMS_D_Ld5.5x5_amazon_rHDMA.I2000Clm60SpMizGs.derecho_intel.mizuroute-default/TestStatus:PASS SMS_D_Ld5.5x5_amazon_rHDMA.I2000Clm60SpMizGs.derecho_intel.mizuroute-default NLCOMP
/glade/campaign/cgd/tss/ctsm_baselines/ctsm5.4.053/SMS_D_Ld5.5x5_amazon_rHDMA.I2000Clm60SpMizGs.derecho_intel.mizuroute-default/TestStatus:PASS SMS_D_Ld5.5x5_amazon_rHDMA.I2000Clm60SpMizGs.derecho_intel.mizuroute-default NLCOMP
/glade/campaign/cgd/tss/ctsm_baselines/ctsm5.4.058/SMS_D_Ld5.5x5_amazon_rHDMA.I2000Clm60SpMizGs.derecho_intel.mizuroute-default/TestStatus:PASS SMS_D_Ld5.5x5_amazon_rHDMA.I2000Clm60SpMizGs.derecho_intel.mizuroute-default NLCOMP
/glade/campaign/cgd/tss/ctsm_baselines/ctsm5.4.063/SMS_D_Ld5.5x5_amazon_rHDMA.I2000Clm60SpMizGs.derecho_intel.mizuroute-default/TestStatus:PASS SMS_D_Ld5.5x5_amazon_rHDMA.I2000Clm60SpMizGs.derecho_intel.mizuroute-default NLCOMP
/glade/campaign/cgd/tss/ctsm_baselines/ctsm5.4.067/SMS_D_Ld5.5x5_amazon_rHDMA.I2000Clm60SpMizGs.derecho_intel.mizuroute-default/TestStatus:PASS SMS_D_Ld5.5x5_amazon_rHDMA.I2000Clm60SpMizGs.derecho_intel.mizuroute-default NLCOMPSo it only passes some of the time, a few tags every series. I'm not quite sure when it passes and when it doesn't, but it seems best if we leave it as an expected fail for now.
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. So I suggest reverting this and leaving it back like it was before.
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Ah, I have a feeling it's the izumi ones that fail. I'm waiting to see what happens in my latest round of testing. |
||
| <test name="SMS_D_Ld5.5x5_amazon_rHDMA.I2000Clm60SpMizGs.derecho_gnu.mizuroute-default"> | ||
| <phase name="NLCOMP"> | ||
| <status>FAIL</status> | ||
| <issue>ESMCI/cime#4966</issue> | ||
| </phase> | ||
| </test> | ||
|
|
||
| <test name="SMS_D_Ld5.5x5_amazon_rHDMA.I2000Clm60SpMizGs.derecho_intel.mizuroute-default"> | ||
| <phase name="NLCOMP"> | ||
| <status>FAIL</status> | ||
| <issue>ESMCI/cime#4966</issue> | ||
| </phase> | ||
| </test> | ||
|
|
||
| <test name="SMS_D_Ld5.5x5_amazon_rHDMA.I2000Clm60SpMizGs.izumi_nag.mizuroute-default"> | ||
| <phase name="RUN"> | ||
| <status>FAIL</status> | ||
|
|
@@ -202,25 +181,25 @@ | |
|
|
||
| <!-- fates test suite failures --> | ||
|
|
||
| <!--- NOTE: This test is also in aux_clm, but just including it here so it's not duplicated --> | ||
| <!--- NOTE: Tests also in aux_clm can be included under this comment to avoid duplication --> | ||
|
|
||
| <!-- This is commented out because cime currently does NOT allow longnames in the XML in the XSD for this file | ||
| <test name="ERS_D_Ld30.f45_f45_mg37.HIST_DATM%CRUv7_CLM50%FATES_SICE_SOCN_SROF_SGLC_SWAV_SESP.izumi_nag.clm-FatesColdLandUse"> | ||
| <test name="ERS_D_Ld30.f45_f45_mt201.HIST_DATM%CRUv7_CLM50%FATES_SICE_SOCN_SROF_SGLC_SWAV_SESP.izumi_nag.clm-FatesColdLandUse"> | ||
| <phase name="RUN"> | ||
| <status>FAIL</status> | ||
| <issue>#3500</issue> | ||
| </phase> | ||
| </test> | ||
| --> | ||
|
|
||
| <test name="ERP_D_Ld90.f45_f45_mg37.I2000Clm60Fates.izumi_nag.clm-FatesColdCStarvationExp"> | ||
| <test name="ERP_D_Ld90.f45_f45_mt201.I2000Clm60Fates.izumi_nag.clm-FatesColdCStarvationExp"> | ||
| <phase name="MEMLEAK"> | ||
| <status>FAIL</status> | ||
| <issue>#4174</issue> | ||
| </phase> | ||
| </test> | ||
|
|
||
| <test name="ERS_D_Ld30.f45_f45_mg37.I2000Clm50Fates.izumi_nag.clm-FatesColdPRT2"> | ||
| <test name="ERS_D_Ld30.f45_f45_mt201.I2000Clm50Fates.izumi_nag.clm-FatesColdPRT2"> | ||
| <phase name="RUN"> | ||
| <status>PEND</status> | ||
| <issue>FATES#983</issue> | ||
|
|
@@ -242,28 +221,28 @@ | |
| </phase> | ||
| </test> | ||
|
|
||
| <test name="PVT_Lm3.f45_f45_mg37.I2000Clm50Fates.derecho_intel.clm-FatesLUPFT"> | ||
| <test name="PVT_Lm3.f45_f45_mt201.I2000Clm50Fates.derecho_intel.clm-FatesLUPFT"> | ||
| <phase name="RUN"> | ||
| <status>FAIL</status> | ||
| <issue>#2919</issue> | ||
| </phase> | ||
| </test> | ||
|
|
||
| <test name="SMS_D_Ld180.f45_f45_mg37.I2000Clm60Fates.derecho_intel.clm-FatesColdTRS"> | ||
| <test name="SMS_D_Ld180.f45_f45_mt201.I2000Clm60Fates.derecho_intel.clm-FatesColdTRS"> | ||
| <phase name="RUN"> | ||
| <status>FAIL</status> | ||
| <issue>FATES#1534</issue> | ||
| </phase> | ||
| </test> | ||
|
|
||
| <test name="ERS_D_Ld30.f45_f45_mg37.I2000Clm50Fates.izumi_nag.clm-FatesColdLUH2"> | ||
| <test name="ERS_D_Ld30.f45_f45_mt201.I2000Clm50Fates.izumi_nag.clm-FatesColdLUH2"> | ||
| <phase name="RUN"> | ||
| <status>FAIL</status> | ||
| <issue>#2653</issue> | ||
| </phase> | ||
| </test> | ||
|
|
||
| <test name="SMS_D_Ld3.f09_g17.I2000Clm60FatesSpCrujra.derecho_gnu.clm-FatesColdSatPhen_prescribed"> | ||
| <test name="SMS_D_Ld3.f09_t233.I2000Clm60FatesSpCrujra.derecho_gnu.clm-FatesColdSatPhen_prescribed"> | ||
| <phase name="RUN"> | ||
| <status>FAIL</status> | ||
| <issue>#2321</issue> | ||
|
|
@@ -272,7 +251,7 @@ | |
|
|
||
| <!-- Other submodule test list failures (MOSART, RTM, etc. --> | ||
|
|
||
| <test name="SMS_Lh3.f10_f10_mg37.I2000Clm60Sp.derecho_intel.mosart-clmAccelSpinupIgnoreWarn"> | ||
| <test name="SMS_Lh3.f10_f10_mt201.I2000Clm60Sp.derecho_intel.mosart-clmAccelSpinupIgnoreWarn"> | ||
| <phase name="CREATE_NEWCASE"> | ||
| <status>FAIL</status> | ||
| <issue>MOSART#91</issue> | ||
|
|
@@ -296,7 +275,7 @@ | |
|
|
||
| <!-- interim_restart (and aux_clm) test list--> | ||
|
|
||
| <test name="ERI_Ld41.f10_f10_mg37.I2000Clm60BgcCrop.derecho_gnu.clm-default"> | ||
| <test name="ERI_Ld41.f10_f10_mt201.I2000Clm60BgcCrop.derecho_gnu.clm-default"> | ||
| <phase name="COMPARE_branch_hybrid"> | ||
| <status>FAIL</status> | ||
| <issue>#3494</issue> | ||
|
|
||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
OK, it looks like this entire file should go back to what it was before.
There are only a few exceptions to that for IC files that didn't accurately represent the actual mask they were run for.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
For the exceptions, reverting back to the previous version of the file and then doing a few targetted changes seems to make sense to me. Both the finidat and init_interp_attributes need to change for it to be correct.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Below I put
THIS IS A REAL CHANGE TO KEEP
to mark that few changes that should be done, to pair the file with the mask it was run at.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There were two cases with "THIS IS A REAL CHANGE TO KEEP" as follows:
Now comes the challenge of finding the corresponding init_interp_attributes:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Or I should look for an already existing 1.9x2.5 with gx1v7 for 2000, in case it's already there and does not need changing. (I need to go for the next two hours or so, I will check when I return.)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
These appear similar other than for the lnd_tuning_mode, so I suspect that I posted the correct one above: