ACCESS-ESM1.5 QA test: CICE icefields_nml configuration

[jo-basevi]

Added QA test for separate icefields_nml in ice_history.nml (in as described in #50)

Closes #50
Closes #44

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 78.07%. Comparing base (2d538a5) to head (0e91aec).
Report is 15 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main      #54      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   73.48%   78.07%   +4.59%     
==========================================
  Files          15       15              
  Lines         724      748      +24     
==========================================
+ Hits          532      584      +52     
+ Misses        192      164      -28     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[jo-basevi]

I quickly added a generic test for the ACCESS-ESM1.5 specific config tests - to just checking the tests pass without error (and also to pass the codecov CI checks..)

I ran some manual tests with an configuration to test the error messages, and that they failed when expected

[CodeGat]

Looks good to me!

Thanks for fixing up the codecov tests...the red crosses were a bit scary when I was doing the initial esm1.5 QA checks

[anton-seaice]

It seems like there are three things bundled into one PR here ?

1. Adding a qa test for cice namelist
2. rearranging the directories
3. add a config for preindustrial+concentrations

In future we should do this as seperate PRs so we can track the changes easier and review it easier !

[jo-basevi]

It seems like there are three things bundled into one PR here ?

Yes, sorry about that! I added the tests so they covered the lines I added in the first commit. But yeah next time, I'll add the wider tests for tests in an earlier PR.

[anton-seaice]

Thanks Jo! - I ran some adhoc tests using dev-historical+concentrations from https://github.com/ACCESS-NRI/access-esm1.5-configs

• The default passes,
• adding &icefields_nml to cice_in gives a positive failure, but the error message could be better,
• adding fields to &setup_nml detects gives a positive failure for duplicated fields (correct)
• renaming ice_history.nml & cice_in.nml both fail correctly

[anton-seaice]

Looks good Jo

[CodeGat]

This should also close #44

[jo-basevi]

Thanks all for the reviews!