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

Compatibility issue while deploying new example to docs #306

Open
wilsonduan10 opened this issue Jun 29, 2023 · 4 comments · May be fixed by #307
Open

Compatibility issue while deploying new example to docs #306

wilsonduan10 opened this issue Jun 29, 2023 · 4 comments · May be fixed by #307
Assignees

Comments

@wilsonduan10
Copy link
Contributor

The Climate Modeling Alliance

Purpose

The example file aerosol_activation.jl is only compatible with CloudMicrophysics v0.5, which constrains other CliMA packages to older versions. For example, CloudMicrophysics v0.5 is only compatible with the package SurfaceFluxes on versions up to 0.3. As a result, when adding an example file that depends on SurfaceFluxes v0.6, make.jl cannot build the docs for both aerosol_activation.jl and whatever file using SurfaceFluxes v0.6 due to compatibility mismatch. This poses a problem for branch wd/surface-flux-example, which intends to add the example kappa_calibration.jl, which relies on SurfaceFluxes v0.6.3.

Cost/Benefits/Risks

Although it takes time to update aerosol_activation.jl to match with more recent package releases, it makes the example file more relevant and easier to reproduce. In addition, by updating the file, it would allow developers such as myself to put out additional example files such as the one introduced above, kappa_calibration.jl, which depends on a newer version of SurfaceFluxes.

People and Personnel

Components

The solution would be updating aerosol_activation.jl to match current releases.

Results and Deliverables

We would expect the updated example to have the same functionality but simply operate under the newer package releases.

@odunbar
Copy link
Collaborator

odunbar commented Jun 30, 2023

Thanks for the suggestion.

I do not maintain this example, as i don't think it was the intention for this to track current versions. However I presume perhaps people involved in Microphysics API (e.g. @trontrytel) have an idea on how the Microphysics API has changed, and the expedience of updating it

In general, I am not super keen on having the documentation becoming heavy with evolving dependencies exactly for this reason. So if there are alternative solutions whereby examples are run in the example folders, figures and code snippets ported over to the docs this would be an easy fix. It's not as fancy as literating/example blocks but it is easier to maintain moving forwards (particularly if the maintainers of e.g. SurfaceFluxes are not planning on keeping the example here up-to-date).

@trontrytel
Copy link
Member

I'll take a look. It shouldn't be too much work to update the dependecies (famous last words ;)

@trontrytel trontrytel linked a pull request Jun 30, 2023 that will close this issue
@akshaysridhar
Copy link
Member

Thank you @trontrytel!

@odunbar
Copy link
Collaborator

odunbar commented Jul 4, 2023

Following on from those "famous last words" :P ... It looks like there is a non-identifiability issue of the aerosol activation inverse problem that was set up. I would like this example to be modified by the microphysics folks, either by improving the data used for one of the parameters, else by removing it and reducing to a 1D learning problem. In either case there may be an additional turnaround time here

@trontrytel trontrytel self-assigned this Jul 10, 2023
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 a pull request may close this issue.

4 participants