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

run_sys_tests: Print test list in --verbose/--debug #2875

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Nov 12, 2024

Conversation

samsrabin
Copy link
Collaborator

@samsrabin samsrabin commented Nov 11, 2024

Description of changes

See title.

Specific notes

Contributors other than yourself, if any: None

CTSM Issues Fixed: None

Are answers expected to change (and if so in what way)? No

Any User Interface Changes (namelist or namelist defaults changes)? No

Does this create a need to change or add documentation? Did you do so? No

Testing performed, if any: Tried it with both -v and --debug; looks good.

./run_sys_tests -s fire --skip-compare --skip-generate -v --dry-run
...
INFO: Tests:
INFO:    SMS_D_Ld65.f10_f10_mg37.I2000Clm45BgcCropQianRs.derecho_intel.clm-FireLi2014Qian
INFO:    SMS_D_Ld65.f10_f10_mg37.I2000Clm50BgcCru.derecho_gnu.clm-FireLi2016Cru
INFO:    SMS_D_Ld65.f10_f10_mg37.I2000Clm60BgcCrop.derecho_intel.clm-FireLi2024CruJra
...
  • Run Python testing.

@samsrabin samsrabin added enhancement new capability or improved behavior of existing capability next this should get some attention in the next week or two. Normally each Thursday SE meeting. bfb bit-for-bit test: python Pass clm_pymods test suite plus Python sys/unit tests before merging labels Nov 11, 2024
@samsrabin samsrabin self-assigned this Nov 11, 2024
Copy link
Collaborator

@ekluzek ekluzek left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hmmm, this is interesting. In a sense this is redundant with cime/scripts/query_testlists which just prints testlist for the options you ask it for.

However, I think I would find this useful as it's nice to be able to just work in run_sys_tests. The main problem I see with doing this here is duplicating something that's handled elsewhere -- but at the same time this is also small. And it's just telling you for the options you have given what tests will be run. So I'm thinking it would be useful in practice.

Copy link
Collaborator

@ekluzek ekluzek left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@adrifoster thinks this would be good to have. And in practice I know I'll be using it. Longer term it makes me want to work on CESM testing in the wider CESM community, but that shouldn't get in the way of doing something that would be helpful now, especially this as something that is simple.

@samsrabin
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Thanks, @ekluzek!

@samsrabin samsrabin merged commit 79d46bf into ESCOMP:b4b-dev Nov 12, 2024
2 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bfb bit-for-bit enhancement new capability or improved behavior of existing capability next this should get some attention in the next week or two. Normally each Thursday SE meeting. test: python Pass clm_pymods test suite plus Python sys/unit tests before merging
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants