Skip to content
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

DOECLIM variables & time series #586

Open
bpbond opened this issue Mar 20, 2022 · 5 comments
Open

DOECLIM variables & time series #586

bpbond opened this issue Mar 20, 2022 · 5 comments
Milestone

Comments

@bpbond
Copy link
Member

bpbond commented Mar 20, 2022

These guys:

    std::vector<double> temp;
    std::vector<double> temp_landair;
    std::vector<double> temp_sst;
    std::vector<double> heatflux_mixed;
    std::vector<double> heatflux_interior;
    std::vector<double> heat_mixed;
    std::vector<double> heat_interior;
    std::vector<double> forcing;

really should use the Hector time series class.

On a very related note, the whole TemperatureComponent::getData structure is bizarre, with a big if/else block depending on whether a date is supplied or not. This should be restructured to be like simpleNbox.

@kdorheim
Copy link
Contributor

Reorganizing how the variables are returned is an easy fix. As for migrating to the Hector time series class I am not sure what kind of list that would be. From my understanding, the std::vector calls were used because the meat of the code is an implementation of an analytical solution of DOECLIM, not the system of differential equations.

The C++ changes to the Hector time series class is probably over my head. At one point I think we even spoke about redoing it to use the system of differential equations instead of the analytical approximation but I don't really know.

@bpbond
Copy link
Member Author

bpbond commented Mar 24, 2022

Let's shelve it for now.

@bpbond
Copy link
Member Author

bpbond commented Mar 24, 2022

The getdata section was the big one, in that it had bad behavior.

@kdorheim
Copy link
Contributor

Could this be a v3.5 milestone?

@bpbond
Copy link
Member Author

bpbond commented Mar 24, 2022

Yes!

@bpbond bpbond modified the milestones: v3.0, v3.5 Mar 30, 2022
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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants