Skip to content

IO_demo checkpointing#304

Open
EdHone wants to merge 14 commits intoMetOffice:mainfrom
EdHone:287-io_demo-cruns
Open

IO_demo checkpointing#304
EdHone wants to merge 14 commits intoMetOffice:mainfrom
EdHone:287-io_demo-cruns

Conversation

@EdHone
Copy link
Contributor

@EdHone EdHone commented Mar 9, 2026

PR Summary

Sci/Tech Reviewer:
Code Reviewer: @andrewcoughtrie

This PR enables the IO_demo app to checkpoint itself. This is achieved by the addition of a small new module (~100 lines of code) which creates a new checkpointing context, creates the definitions for the relevant checkpoint/restart files and adds the context to the clock event loop.
Where possible, this should be the template used to set up checkpointing for all LFRic applications.
I have also added some nrun-vs-crun tests to the IO_demo rose-stem developer tests which pass, demonstrating the new functionality.
I also moved some things around in the lfric_xios_context_mod, namely the callipers which were confusingly outside of the if statement that controlled whether the measured code would be run.

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_core - lfric_core-287-io_demo-cruns/run9

Suite Information

Item Value
Suite Name lfric_core-287-io_demo-cruns/run9
Suite User edward.hone
Workflow Start 2026-03-09T12:12:06
Groups Run io_demo_developer
Dependency Reference Main Like
lfric_core EdHone/lfric_core@287-io_demo-cruns False
SimSys_Scripts MetOffice/SimSys_Scripts@2025.12.1 True

Task Information

✅ succeeded tasks - 73

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

@EdHone EdHone marked this pull request as ready for review March 9, 2026 16:57
@EdHone EdHone requested review from a team and james-bruten-mo as code owners March 9, 2026 16:57
@EdHone EdHone requested review from stevemullerworth and removed request for a team March 9, 2026 16:57
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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants