Fix snowmelt declaration that should be illegal#695
Open
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
CABLE
Thank you for submitting a pull request to the CABLE Project.
Description
The declaration of the
ssnowdummy variable insnow_meltingseems like it should be illegal, as it's using a non-parameter value to declare an explicit array shape. The sequence around this call is also somewhat non-sensical, as the dummy variable isINTENT(OUT), so any information set prior to this call is meaningless.Type of change
Please delete options that are not relevant.
Checklist
Testing
Are the changes bitwise-compatible with the main branch? If working on an optional feature, are the results bitwise-compatible when this feature is off? If yes, copy benchcab output showing successful completion of the bitwise compatibility tests or equivalent results below this line.
Are the changes non bitwise-compatible with the main branch because of a bug fix or a feature being newly implemented or improved? If yes, add the link to the modelevaluation.org analysis versus the main branch or equivalent results below this line.
📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://cable--695.org.readthedocs.build/en/695/