Skip to content

fixes to logging: dbhmax logic and hlm_use_lu_harvest checking#689

Merged
glemieux merged 2 commits into
NGEET:masterfrom
ckoven:harvest_fixes
Oct 1, 2020
Merged

fixes to logging: dbhmax logic and hlm_use_lu_harvest checking#689
glemieux merged 2 commits into
NGEET:masterfrom
ckoven:harvest_fixes

Conversation

@ckoven

@ckoven ckoven commented Aug 31, 2020

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Fixes two things: the logic on logging_dbhmax was reversed, and the ok-values checking on hlm_use_lu_harvest wasn't right.

Description:

  1. Basically because of the .and. .not. in the dbh logic, the comparison to logging_dbhmax was reversed.
  2. Since the area-based vs mass-based logic is now handled by a separate variable (hlm_harvest_units), hlm_use_lu_harvest is only a true/false switch so updated the error checking and documentation to reflect that.

I worked through all the combinations of possible logic on the dbh checking to make sure it is right this time...

      [dbh > dbhmin] .and. not. ([dbhmax invoked] .and. [dbh >= dbhmax]) =>  [do we log this tree?]
      T                                  F                      T            T
      T                                  F                      F            T
      T                                  T                      T            F
      T                                  T                      F            T
      F                                  F                      T            F
      F                                  F                      F            F
      F                                  T                      T            F
      F                                  T                      F            F

Collaborators:

Both of these were caught by @aldivi.

Expectation of Answer Changes:

not unless logging_dbhmax is set as other than missing value in the parameter file.

Checklist:

  • My change requires a change to the documentation.
  • I have updated the in-code documentation .AND. (the technical note .OR. the wiki) accordingly.
  • I have read the CONTRIBUTING document.
  • FATES PASS/FAIL regression tests were run
  • If answers were expected to change, evaluation was performed and provided

Test Results:

not tested yet.

CTSM (or) E3SM (specify which) test hash-tag:

CTSM (or) E3SM (specify which) baseline hash-tag:

FATES baseline hash-tag:

Test Output:

@rgknox rgknox self-requested a review August 31, 2020 19:08
@glemieux glemieux self-assigned this Sep 23, 2020
@glemieux

glemieux commented Sep 23, 2020

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

This was tests on fates_main_api hash fde33f56. All tests PASS, with two DIFFs on hydro tests:

/glade/u/home/glemieux/scratch/clmed-tests/pr689.fates.cheyenne.intel.Cfde33f56-F2eb4da6e

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants