Porting WRF-SFIRE fuel moisture model to WRF4: Difference between revisions

From openwfm
No edit summary
Line 3: Line 3:
* I started {{wrf-fire-merge-branch|fuel-moisture-model}} from {{wrf-branch|develop}} as recommended in [https://github.com/wrf-model/WRF/wiki/Workflow-for-WRF-Code-Modification WRF instructions].  
* I started {{wrf-fire-merge-branch|fuel-moisture-model}} from {{wrf-branch|develop}} as recommended in [https://github.com/wrf-model/WRF/wiki/Workflow-for-WRF-Code-Modification WRF instructions].  
* Cherry pick {{wrf-fire-commit|f8193dad36|2011-09-25  adding moisture variables}} and {{wrf-fire-commit|5a6c4b8c06|2011-09-26 21:55:09 using variable fuel moisture in fmc_g}}. Making minimal changes against original. I had to check and understand any changes not just resolve the conflicts. Hard to automate. So that took a bit of time.
* Cherry pick {{wrf-fire-commit|f8193dad36|2011-09-25  adding moisture variables}} and {{wrf-fire-commit|5a6c4b8c06|2011-09-26 21:55:09 using variable fuel moisture in fmc_g}}. Making minimal changes against original. I had to check and understand any changes not just resolve the conflicts. Hard to automate. So that took a bit of time.
* I created {{wrf-fire-merge-tag|fuel-moisture-model-added-fmc_g}} at {{wrf-fire-merge-commit|132444f0db6754417|}}. The result should  
* I created {{wrf-fire-merge-tag|fuel-moisture-model-added-fmc_g}} and {{wrf-fire-merge-branch|added-fmc_g}} at {{wrf-fire-merge-commit|132444f0db6754417|}}. The result should  
** give the same numbers  as code build by checking out {{wrf-fire-merge-tag|wrf-develop-baseline}} when <tt>fire_fmc_read=1</tt> in namelist.input or not set
** give the same numbers  as code build by checking out {{wrf-fire-merge-tag|wrf-develop-baseline}} when <tt>fire_fmc_read=1</tt> in namelist.input or not set
** take <tt>fmc_g</tt> from <tt>wrfinput</tt> when <tt>fire_fmc_read=0</tt>
** take <tt>fmc_g</tt> from <tt>wrfinput</tt> when <tt>fire_fmc_read=0</tt>
** next: read from file when <tt>fire_fmc_read=2</tt>
* This is how it is in this stage of the code for testing, but has changed in further commits after 2011-09-26 so it will be different after the port is completed.
Should I swap 0 and 1?
==Testing of <tt>fmc_g</tt> added==
 
* Get the test code:
To compile on kingspeak, please see [[How_to_build_WRF4#University_of_Utah_CHPC]]
<pre>
 
git clone ssh://git@github.com/openwfm/WRF-Fire-merge.git
cd WRF-Fire-merge
git checkout added-fmc_g
git log
</pre>
to make sure you are at {{wrf-fire-merge-commit|132444f0db67544179c7998f5653c488dd41e836|}}.
* Build on kingspeak following [[How_to_build_WRF4#University_of_Utah_CHPC]]
<pre>
cd test/em_fire
./ideal.exe
./wrf.exe >& wrf.log &
</pre>
==The original plan (one out of several actually)==
==The original plan (one out of several actually)==
Too much complexity. There were quite a few conflicts already in cherry pick to {{wrf-fire-commit|3cdb542af7ce|submitted to 3.3}} where not much changed. After a day or so, I decided I may as well do it right.   
Too much complexity. There were quite a few conflicts already in cherry pick to {{wrf-fire-commit|3cdb542af7ce|submitted to 3.3}} where not much changed. After a day or so, I decided I may as well do it right.   

Revision as of 14:00, 23 January 2019

Progress

Testing of fmc_g added

  • Get the test code:
git clone ssh://git@github.com/openwfm/WRF-Fire-merge.git
cd WRF-Fire-merge
git checkout added-fmc_g
git log

to make sure you are at 132444f0db67544179c7998f5653c488dd41e836 . 

cd test/em_fire
./ideal.exe
./wrf.exe >& wrf.log &

The original plan (one out of several actually)

Too much complexity. There were quite a few conflicts already in cherry pick to 3cdb542af7ce submitted to 3.3 where not much changed. After a day or so, I decided I may as well do it right.

See also

Retrieved from "https://wiki.openwfm.org/index.php?title=Porting_WRF-SFIRE_fuel_moisture_model_to_WRF4&oldid=3337"