Add kessler_test Test SDF for FPHYStest to split off from FKESSLER test #204
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Originator(s): jimmielin
Description (include issue title and the keyword ['closes', 'fixes', 'resolves'] and issue number):
The FPHYStest test for Kessler in SIMA right now uses the same
suite_kessler.xml
as FKESSLER, which means it includesphysics_after_coupler
and othercheck_energy
schemes we do not want to include in the FPHYStest test which should only be testingkessler_tend
.This PR includes a new
suite_kessler_test.xml
that removes all the other schemes from the SDF and keeps only what we want to test, and consistent with how the snapshots are taken in CAM:List all namelist files that were added or changed: N/A
List all files eliminated and why: N/A
List all files added and what they do:
List all existing files that have been modified, and describe the changes:
(Helpful git command:
git diff --name-status development...<your_branch_name>
)N/A
List all automated tests that failed, as well as an explanation for why they weren't fixed:
N/A
Is this an answer-changing PR? If so, is it a new physics package, algorithm change, tuning change, etc?
Yes for FPHYStest kessler test
If yes to the above question, describe how this code was validated with the new/modified features:
BFB when using this suite