Skip to content

WSM6: remove unnecessary ifdef for purpose of WRF/MPAS unification#809

Merged
kkeene44 merged 1 commit intowrf-model:developfrom
kkeene44:wsm6_remove_unnecessary_if_test
Mar 18, 2019
Merged

WSM6: remove unnecessary ifdef for purpose of WRF/MPAS unification#809
kkeene44 merged 1 commit intowrf-model:developfrom
kkeene44:wsm6_remove_unnecessary_if_test

Conversation

@kkeene44
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

@kkeene44 kkeene44 commented Mar 13, 2019 •
edited by davegill
Loading

TYPE: no impact

KEYWORDS: wsm6, wrf, mpas, unify, if loop

SOURCE: internal

DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES:
At the top of the wsm6 module was an if defined (wrfmodel) loop that included a few 'use'
statements for models/routines that are currently not used in this MP scheme. Removed that
loop to unify this routine with MPAS and to clean-up unnecessary dependencies.

LIST OF MODIFIED FILES:
M phys/module_mp_wsm6.F

TESTS CONDUCTED:

  • verified that this builds without problems and produces bit-for-bit results before and after mods.

@kkeene44 kkeene44 requested a review from a team as a code owner March 13, 2019 04:38
@davegill
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

davegill commented Mar 13, 2019

@kkeene44
Kelly,
Weird.
These USE associations are used to determine if a particular alarm is ringing, in this case the history alarm (is it time to write to wrfout_d0x). This could have been a "one-off" a long time ago, or perhaps it was used to determine when to compute the radar computations before those were centralized. That computation was expensive and only done when it was a known history output time.

@davegill davegill self-requested a review March 13, 2019 15:52
@davegill
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

davegill commented Mar 13, 2019

@dudhia @weiwangncar
Jimy and Wei,
This is in the physics dir, so you need to take a look.
This looks just fine to me. I approve.

@weiwangncar
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

weiwangncar commented Mar 13, 2019

@kkeene44 @davegill Good point. @kkeene44 Can you do a test with 'do_radar_ref=1 on? It seems that it will work. But it doesn't hurt to check. Once the model is run, take a look at the output to look for refl_10cm field in 3D (or 4D) list.

@davegill davegill changed the title remove unncessary if test for WRF, for purpose of WRF/MPAS unification WSM6: remove unnecessary ifdef for purpose of WRF/MPAS unification Mar 13, 2019
@kkeene44
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

kkeene44 commented Mar 13, 2019

@weiwangncar @davegill
I verified that refl_10cm looks okay when do_radar_ref is turned on.

@kkeene44 kkeene44 merged commit 5265a66 into wrf-model:develop Mar 18, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@weiwangncar weiwangncar weiwangncar approved these changes

@davegill davegill Awaiting requested review from davegill

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

Develop Branch PHYSICS

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@kkeene44 @davegill @weiwangncar