-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 117
Convection diagnostics needed for PS49 #676
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: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Changes from all commits
8e74f7f
c8e0d1e
63ce74d
c658fef
8208979
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -3,6 +3,9 @@ | |
| # The file LICENCE, distributed with this code, contains details of the terms | ||
| # under which the code may be used. | ||
| # ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ||
| # Some of the content of this file has been produced with the assistance of | ||
| # Met Office Claude Code Enterprise. | ||
| # ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ||
| ''' | ||
| This file lifts optional overrides, where possible, into a localised, | ||
| single location. | ||
|
|
@@ -35,6 +38,7 @@ | |
| "parcel_buoyancy", "qsat_at_lcl", "bl_type_ind", "visc_m_blend", | ||
| "visc_h_blend", "zh_2d", "zhsc_2d", "ntml_2d", "cumulus_2d", | ||
| "rh_crit", "mix_len_bm", "dsldzm", "wvar", "zht", "oblen", | ||
| "cape_undilute_2d", | ||
|
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. Can you explain what this is doing? Why are we telling PsyClone to "ignore dependencies" specifically for the undilute cape diagnostic output by conv_diag?
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. I'm not sure - I'm hoping Hacka Fett (@christophermaynard) is going to say whether this is correct or not (it is at least consistent with what happens for the other diagnostic fields!) |
||
| ] | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
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.
Again, it'd be nice to know / understand what the changes in these optimisation files actually do, given I'm meant to be reviewing this! (stick it to "separation of concerns"!) Are we really meant to just let AI copy/paste what's done for existing variables without understanding it?