Skip to content
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

compare two test case names match #1832

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Aug 23, 2017

Conversation

jedwards4b
Copy link
Contributor

@jedwards4b jedwards4b commented Aug 23, 2017

This PR makes the case2 casename in system_tests_compare_two match the case one casename and nests both the case directory and the output directories inside that of case1. This is a precursor for a PR to address issue #1640

Addresses #1640

Test suite: scripts_regression_tests.py
Test baseline:
Test namelist changes:
Test status: bit for bit
Fixes

User interface changes?:

Update gh-pages html (Y/N)?: N

Code review:

@jgfouca
Copy link
Contributor

jgfouca commented Aug 23, 2017

@jedwards4b is this guaranteed to work on all systems? I'm thinking of machines that put their builds and runs on separate file systems.

@jedwards4b
Copy link
Contributor Author

Yes I think so since both the caseroot and cime_output_root are handled explicitly. Do you have an example of a machine that does this?

@jedwards4b
Copy link
Contributor Author

I can test this by adding the --test-root option to create_test, trying it now.

@billsacks
Copy link
Member

@jedwards4b I pushed a commit with a minor grammar fix. Now reviewing for more substantive things.

Copy link
Member

@billsacks billsacks left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm happy with the general idea of this PR. But I have the same comment that I did for #1830 : I find it confusing to have a directory structure where (for example) /glade/scratch/sacks/ERP.f09_g16.X.cheyenne_intel.20170821_122057_wklm6k is the base case, and /glade/scratch/sacks/ERP.f09_g16.X.cheyenne_intel.20170821_122057_wklm6k/ERP.f09_g16.X.cheyenne_intel.20170821_122057_wklm6k is the restart case... and the same for CIME_OUTPUT_ROOT: There is no indication from the directory structure that the latter is the restart case, and instead you see the confusing situation where the case directory has a subdirectory with the same name.

I feel it would be more clear if another level were added to the directory structure, so we had something like /glade/scratch/sacks/ERP.f09_g16.X.cheyenne_intel.20170821_122057_wklm6k/rest_case/ERP.f09_g16.X.cheyenne_intel.20170821_122057_wklm6k - see also the example in #1647 (comment)

@@ -92,7 +92,10 @@ def __init__(self,
self._case2 = None

self._setup_cases_if_not_yet_done()

# Since case 2 has the same name as case1 its CIME_OUTPUT_ROOT must also be different
self._case2.set_value("CIME_OUTPUT_ROOT",
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This should go in the _setup_cases function, in order to keep the init method cleaner and so that any problem is protected by the try... except block in _setup_cases_if_not_yet_done.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

moved

@jedwards4b
Copy link
Contributor Author

Now if the case1 name is "thiscase" case2 will be located in thiscase/case2/thiscase and the
run and build directories will have a similar structure. eg
/glade/scratch/user/thiscase/case2/thiscase/run

@billsacks
Copy link
Member

Okay, I'm happy with this now - thanks!

@jgfouca
Copy link
Contributor

jgfouca commented Aug 23, 2017

@jedwards4b should I merge?

@jedwards4b
Copy link
Contributor Author

@jgfouca yes

@jgfouca jgfouca merged commit 00ac08a into ESMCI:master Aug 23, 2017
@jedwards4b jedwards4b deleted the match_names_in_cases branch August 23, 2017 22:34
jgfouca pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 16, 2020
Remove machine-specific flags and avoid FP exceptions on invalid FP values with GNU.

Addresses #1832

[BFB]
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants