PR Summary

Sci/Tech Reviewer: Andrew Coughtrie (@andrewcoughtrie)
Code Reviewer: Pierre Siddall (@Pierre-siddall)

I have added rules to a fortitude configuration file so that more checks are run on the code. This will reduce the amount of new style issues getting onto the trunks.

N.B. Although these fortitude tests being added passed before submission for review, any new additions to the trunk after that may cause fortitude errors, so those will be need to be fixed by me/the developer while the trunk is reserved for this ticket to be committed.

There are lots of exceptions (check.per-file-ignores) listed in the configuration files which stop certain files being tested with certain rules, so the tests all pass. Some style issues have been fixed in this ticket but the rest of these style issues can be fixed in batches with proceeding tickets.

Here is a full list of the rules added and what they check for:

#E000 io-error
#E001 syntax-error
#C001 missing implicit none,
#C021 real literal missing kind suffix
#C022 implicit-real-kind
#C031 magic-number-in-array-size
#C032 magic unit in IO statement
#C043 missing-action-specifier
#C051 trailing-backslash
#C071 assumed-size
#C072 character has assumed size but does not have intent(in)
#C081 initialisation-in-declaration
#C091 external-procedure
#C082 pointer-initialisation-in-declaration
#C092 procedure-not-in-module
#C121 use-all
#C132 default-public-accessibility
#C141 missing-exit-or-cycle-label
#OB011 common-block
#OB021 entry-statement
#OB051 pause-statement
#OB061 deprecated-character-syntax
#MOD001 double-precision
#MOD021 deprecated-relational-operator
#S101 trailing-whitespace
#S071 missing-double-colon
#PORT011 literal-kind
#PORT012 literal-kind-suffix
#PORT021 star-kind
#FORT001 invalid-rule-code-or-name
#FORT002 unused-allow-comment
#FORT003 redirected-allow-comment
#FORT004 duplicated-allow-comment
#FORT005 disabled-allow-comment

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 - lc_add_r1/run10

Suite Information

Task Information

✅ succeeded tasks - 402

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