Skip to content

set radiation upper boundary to normalized for diagnostics - #1594

Open
rgknox wants to merge 1 commit into
NGEET:mainfrom
rgknox:rward_norm_rad
Open

set radiation upper boundary to normalized for diagnostics#1594
rgknox wants to merge 1 commit into
NGEET:mainfrom
rgknox:rward_norm_rad

Conversation

@rgknox

@rgknox rgknox commented Jul 28, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Description:

This bug was identified in #1586 and a proposed fix was provided by @r-ward . In summary, we make sure that the upper boundary condition for radiation is set to the normalized value when filling diagnostic arrays. The solver itself uses arguments instead of these patch level values, so was not affected.

Collaborators:

@r-ward identified and came up with the solution

Expectation of Answer Changes:

Description of generative AI usage (as necessary)

Checklist

If this is your first time contributing, please read the CONTRIBUTING document.

All checklist items must be checked to enable merging this pull request:

Contributor

  • The in-code documentation has been updated with descriptive comments
  • The documentation has been assessed to determine if updates are necessary
  • Describe use of generative AI (if necessary)

No generative AI was used here

Integrator

  • FATES PASS/FAIL regression tests were run
  • Evaluation of test results for answer changes was performed and results provided
  • FATES-CLM6 Code Freeze: satellite phenology regression tests are b4b

If satellite phenology regressions are not b4b, please hold merge and notify the FATES development team.

Documentation

Test Results:

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

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

FATES baseline hash-tag:

Test Output:

@rgknox rgknox added testing: partial non-b4b Only specific test configurations have differences software: not API changing Does not require a change to the HLM API parameters: no change labels Jul 28, 2026
@rgknox

rgknox commented Jul 28, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

This could be labeled as either partial B4B or pure B4B. There are certainly tests that use these normalized arrays, and only those values will be expected to change (from non-sense to sensible).

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

Labels

parameters: no change software: not API changing Does not require a change to the HLM API testing: partial non-b4b Only specific test configurations have differences

Projects

Status: Finding Reviewers

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant