Conversation
This will make it easier to track specific model diffs without accumulated changes to [JsonIgnore] type fields.
|
Looks like a canola change slipped through somehow. I think it might be phase definitions in Leaf senescence rate. |
ilhuber
added
Do Not Merge
par456
added
Ready for Reference Panel Review
The CoverGreen variable was a proxy for a different value APSIM does not predict during calibration.
These were not part of the prior model, nor are we aiming to add them.
|
The Canola model seems to have the Water logging functions parametersed out (ie to have no effect). The water logging factors are only turned on for individual cultivars. It is not clear as to why the converter is adding defaults into cultivars. That is the purpose of the base model. |
|
Is it possible to explain what the purpose of the converter is? This seems to be updating parameters in some cultivars. |
|
The purpose of the converter is to update a cultivar path that had targeted a location in the model tree which was moved deeper due to the waterlogging updates. It "re-targets" these paths. Looking at the diffs, apparently the only model that had default cultivars get re-targeted was Maize. Still, the converter would be necessary to preserve user's custom cultivars. Not sure where you are seeing the converter altering defaults? Those later commits are not related to the converter. Defaults in the Canola model had been altered by whoever did the work on the Canola replacement model and it was having an effect on the non-waterlogging simulations. |
This model uses the old complex leaf, which has a different way of handling leaf senescence compared to the "simple" leaf.
Does not seem like these are something that can be converted? There is nothing about the overrides here that tells me this is canola.
This got put in a wrong spot in the previous commit. I was wondering why there were no merge conflicts...
|
At the moment, if its one of the github actions. Click on the one that has failed, then in the top right of the screen, click re-run all jobs 
|
Horrific merge conflicts. Hopefully nothing is too messed up.
3 participants
Resolves #10502
This will hopefully show model improvement. If we see differences in non waterlogging simulations we know there is some error. There may be some hidden cultivars in some of the private datasets.