Conversation
dustinswales
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for these changes. Looks good to me.
| !! This file contains the calculation of fraction of convective cloud, | ||
| !! pressure at bottom of convective cloud and at top of convective | ||
| !! cloud. | ||
| !! This module computes the convective cloud fraction, as well as |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@mzhangw May want to revert this change because it affects the Doxygen output. Even though it's repetitive, I think that Doxygen wants description for the file and the module because these descriptions show up in different contexts.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@grantfirl Would you mind pointing me to a file/module that I can follow? I can revert, but it would be nice to follow preferred template.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@matusmartini It may be a moot point because I haven't been intimately involved with the scientific documentation in a while. Perhaps this repetition truly isn't needed anymore. Regardless, I'd like @mzhangw (who has led this effort most recently) to OK this because I don't want to break any existing documentation functionality.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It seems to be inconsistent. Some files do not have duplicated entries.
Examples of the use:
!! Contains code to...
!! This module contains code...
!! This file contains <empty, nothing>
Ideally, should the information be duplicated as in the following?
!! This file contains <information about the scheme>
...
!! This module contains <information about the scheme>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@matusmartini, please feel free to revise the document as appropriate. We usually debug Doxygen prior to a CCPP release if it breaks the SciDoc.
| !! This file contains the calculation of fraction of convective cloud, | ||
| !! pressure at bottom of convective cloud and at top of convective | ||
| !! cloud. | ||
| !! This module computes the convective cloud fraction, as well as |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@matusmartini, please feel free to revise the document as appropriate. We usually debug Doxygen prior to a CCPP release if it breaks the SciDoc.
|
@matusmartini I'd like to combine this with #1202 and #1199 for testing/merging. Is this OK with you? |
|
@grantfirl I believe @matusmartini is on PTO or about to go on PTO - no objects from my side combining this with other zero-diff PRs. |
Description of Changes:
Remove unused variables and improve scheme description in
cnvc90.f(remove duplicate description).Tests Conducted:
None.
Dependencies:
None.
Documentation:
None.