Fix syntax for esm1.5 (doesn't use cable as a library) #372
Conversation
anton-seaice
changed the title
|
Are these syntax changes for Spack 1.0? |
|
Nope unrelated - the old syntax was wrong |
|
Fair enough, approved |
harshula
left a comment
harshula
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hi @anton-seaice , What's the reason for the file .github/build-ci/manifests/um7/intel.spack.yaml.j2 being renamed to .github/build-ci/manifests/access-esm1p5/intel.spack.yaml.j2?
|
git interpreted the changes slightly strangely. I added the file I duplicated the file
So that there is coverage of both builds |
|
Hi @anton-seaice , Any reason you didn't do something like: https://github.com/ACCESS-NRI/access-spack-packages/blob/main/.github/build-ci/manifests/oasis3-mct/intel.spack.yaml.j2 ? |
|
No that work would fine as well, I think it's easier generally to debug failures which are more granular |
|
Hi @anton-seaice , There's also additional overhead when additional environments need to be setup. You make a good point regarding debugging. I'll discuss that with @CodeGat when he gets back. For the time being, can you please add both specs to the existing manifest? e.g. https://github.com/ACCESS-NRI/access-spack-packages/blob/main/.github/build-ci/manifests/oasis3-mct/intel.spack.yaml.j2 . It will also make the transition to APIv2 easier to track and verify. |
|
I think i've made the suggested change @harshula |
harshula
left a comment
harshula
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks! Please remember to Squash merge
|
Is merge commit ok? Just two commits with different scope in each |
|
Hi @anton-seaice , Yes, sure. That's probably an indication that some of the changes in this PR, should be in a separate PR. |
Closes #371
This fixes a syntax error in the um7 package.
This also adds ci builds for access-esm1.5