Skip to content

Conversation

@tom-j-h
Copy link
Contributor

@tom-j-h tom-j-h commented Jan 20, 2026

PR Summary

Sci/Tech Reviewer: @mo-joshuacolclough
Code Reviewer: @mo-alistairp

A useful capability for testing robustness and performance in a realistic scenario.

PLEASE NOTE - this is a follow-on to #156. The branch was created from #156's branch in my fork, but I can't make a PR into that branch because then I would be stuck in my fork. So, to look at the actual changes relevant to this PR alone, look at the diff of this branch with #156's branch: tom-j-h/lfric_apps@align_jedi_lfric_tests_to_linear_model...tom-j-h:lfric_apps:jelf_real_increment_adjoint_test

PLEASE ALSO NOTE - #156 relies on MetOffice/lfric_core#227, so when testing, I used this Core branch.

Code Quality Checklist

  • I have performed a self-review of my own code
  • My code follows the project's style guidelines
  • Comments have been included that aid understanding and enhance the readability of the code
  • My changes generate no new warnings
  • All automated checks in the CI pipeline have completed successfully

Testing

  • I have tested this change locally, using the LFRic Core rose-stem suite
  • If required (e.g. API changes) I have also run the LFRic Apps test suite using this branch
  • If any tests fail (rose-stem or CI) the reason is understood and acceptable (e.g. kgo changes)
  • I have added tests to cover new functionality as appropriate (e.g. system tests, unit tests, etc.)
  • Any new tests have been assigned an appropriate amount of compute resource and have been allocated to an appropriate testing group (i.e. the developer tests are for jobs which use a small amount of compute resource and complete in a matter of minutes)

trac.log

Test Suite Results - lfric_apps - jelf_real_increment_adjoint_test-developer/run2

Suite Information

Item Value
Suite Name jelf_real_increment_adjoint_test-developer/run2
Suite User tom.hill
Workflow Start 2026-01-20T14:45:21
Groups Run developer
Dependency Reference Main Like
casim MetOffice/[email protected] True
jules MetOffice/[email protected] True
lfric_apps tom-j-h/lfric_apps@jelf_C224_adjoint_tests False
lfric_core tom-j-h/lfric_core@2a67d6b True
moci MetOffice/[email protected] True
SimSys_Scripts MetOffice/[email protected] True
socrates MetOffice/[email protected] True
socrates-spectral MetOffice/[email protected] True
ukca MetOffice/[email protected] True

Task Information

✅ succeeded tasks - 1108

Security Considerations

  • I have reviewed my changes for potential security issues
  • Sensitive data is properly handled (if applicable)
  • Authentication and authorisation are properly implemented (if applicable)

Performance Impact

  • Performance of the code has been considered and, if applicable, suitable performance measurements have been conducted

AI Assistance and Attribution

  • Some of the content of this change has been produced with the assistance of Generative AI tool name (e.g., Met Office Github Copilot Enterprise, Github Copilot Personal, ChatGPT GPT-4, etc) and I have followed the Simulation Systems AI policy (including attribution labels)

Documentation

  • Where appropriate I have updated documentation related to this change and confirmed that it builds correctly

PSyclone Approval

  • If you have edited any PSyclone-related code (e.g. PSyKAl-lite, Kernel interface, optimisation scripts, LFRic data structure code) then please contact the TCD Team

Sci/Tech Review

  • I understand this area of code and the changes being added
  • The proposed changes correspond to the pull request description
  • Documentation is sufficient (do documentation papers need updating)
  • Sufficient testing has been completed

(Please alert the code reviewer via a tag when you have approved the SR)

Code Review

  • All dependencies have been resolved
  • Related Issues have been properly linked and addressed
  • CLA compliance has been confirmed
  • Code quality standards have been met
  • Tests are adequate and have passed
  • Documentation is complete and accurate
  • Security considerations have been addressed
  • Performance impact is acceptable

tom-j-h and others added 25 commits January 7, 2026 10:23
…j-h/lfric_apps into align_adjoint_tests_to_linear_model
@tom-j-h tom-j-h added this to the Spring 2026 milestone Jan 20, 2026
@tom-j-h tom-j-h self-assigned this Jan 20, 2026
@github-actions github-actions bot added the cla-signed The CLA has been signed as part of this PR - added by GA label Jan 20, 2026
@tom-j-h
Copy link
Contributor Author

tom-j-h commented Jan 27, 2026

Hi Tom, I've noticed you're still merging in branches, and making commits - can I check that branch is ready for review or is the work still ongoing? Also, there appear to be some conflicts that will need resolving.

I've just noticed that this is still blocked by 156 so I presume it isn't ready for review?

Hi Alistair. The branch is ready for review, the blocking by #156 is to do with merge order. I've got a chain of PRs going (see #130) that are dependent on each other, but the changes for each can be reviewed individually. Ignore the "Files changed" above and use the diff I linked (tom-j-h/lfric_apps@align_jedi_lfric_tests_to_linear_model...tom-j-h:lfric_apps:jelf_real_increment_adjoint_test) to see the changes that are relevant for this particular PR.

There will be commits coming in to this PR any time I update PRs below it on the chain with respect to their reviews, as I then update this one. I'm doing things this way with the intent of making it easier for your team to eventually get everything onto main, since all the PRs modify the same tests.

Hope this all makes sense. If you'd rather wait for the PRs below this one on the chain to be merged to main to make it easier for you, then I have no problem with that, although my hope is to get the whole chain onto main as part of the upcoming release!

@mo-alistairp
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks for clarifying that!

I've had a little look and right now these changes look fine in isolation. There isn't really a point in me testing this whilst the PRs that underpin it are changing as the tests could be voided by any change. So, I'm going to have to wait until the other PRs are at least approved, but preferably committed in order to test the changes fairly. Sorry for the inconvenience

Also, I see that this is changing Jedi-related tests - do they need to be made aware of this change?

@tom-j-h
Copy link
Contributor Author

tom-j-h commented Jan 28, 2026

I've had a little look and right now these changes look fine in isolation. There isn't really a point in me testing this whilst the PRs that underpin it are changing as the tests could be voided by any change. So, I'm going to have to wait until the other PRs are at least approved, but preferably committed in order to test the changes fairly. Sorry for the inconvenience

Thanks, not an inconvenience at all.

Also, I see that this is changing Jedi-related tests - do they need to be made aware of this change?

Yes @ss421 is aware of these changes.

@mo-alistairp
Copy link
Contributor

Ok, perfect - thank you! If you could let me know when the prior PRs are done and I can get straight to testing this?

Copy link

@ss421 ss421 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I can confirm that this does not impact JEDI testing so there is nothing further to do on that side.

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

Labels

cla-signed The CLA has been signed as part of this PR - added by GA

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

jelf adjoint tests initialised with realistic increments

5 participants