Skip to content

Minor docker improvements#892

Open
codeZeilen wants to merge 2 commits into
magpiemodel:developfrom
codeZeilen:fix/minor-docker-improvements
Open

Minor docker improvements#892
codeZeilen wants to merge 2 commits into
magpiemodel:developfrom
codeZeilen:fix/minor-docker-improvements

Conversation

@codeZeilen

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

🐦 Description of this PR 🐦

Improves Dockerfile slightly by enabling pdf doc and validation pdf generation. Fixes an issue with piam package installation.

🔧 Checklist for PR creator 🔧

If a point is not applicable, check the checkbox anyway and write "non-applicable" next to the checkbox.

  • Label pull request from the label list.

    • Low risk: Simple bugfixes (missing files, updated documentation, typos) or changes in start or output scripts
    • Medium risk: Uncritical changes in the model core (e.g. moderate modifications in non-default realizations)
    • High risk: Critical changes in model core or default settings (e.g. changing a model default or adjusting a core mechanic in the model)
  • Self-review own code

    • No hard coded numbers and cluster/country/region names.
    • The new code doesn't contain declared but unused parameters or variables.
    • magpie4 R library has been updated accordingly and backwards compatible where necessary.
    • scenario_config.csv has been updated accordingly (important if default.cfg has been updated)
  • Document changes

    • Add changes to CHANGELOG.md
    • Where relevant, put In-code documentation comments
    • Properly address updates in interfaces in the module documentations
    • run goxygen::goxygen() and verify the modified code is properly documented
  • Perform test runs

    • Low risk:
      • Run a compilation check via Rscript start.R --> "compilation check"
    • Medium risk:
      • Run default run via Rscript start.R --> "default"
      • Check logs for errors/warnings
      • Fill in performance section below
    • High risk:
      • Run test runs via Rscript start.R --> "test runs"
      • Check logs for errors/warnings
      • Default run from the PR target branch for comparison
      • Provide relevant comparison plots (land-use, emissions, food prices, land-use intensity,...)
      • Fill in performance section below
  • Reporting produces no errors and no new warnings

  • Get two approving reviews (at least one from RSE)

📉 Performance 📈

  • This PR's default : ** mins
  • For comparison: runtimes of weekly test

🚨 Checklist for reviewer 🚨

  • PR is labeled correctly
  • Code changes look reasonable
    • No hard coded numbers and cluster/country/region names.
    • No unnecessary increase in module interfaces
    • model behavior/performance is satisfactory.
  • Changes are properly documented
    • CHANGELOG is updated correctly
    • Updates in interfaces have been properly addressed in the module documentations
    • In-code documentation looks appropriate

@pascal-sauer pascal-sauer left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should maybe put "fix dockerfile" or so into changelog

@codeZeilen

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Should maybe put "fix dockerfile" or so into changelog

I was wondering about that too, but decided that the changelog documents the changes between releases, so this fix would still count towards the "Added Dockerfile" which is already in there?

@pascal-sauer

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Yeah I'm also sometimes (including here) unsure how helpful a changelog entry is, and then stumble upon the PR template 🤷 I don't mind either way here

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Low risk Low risk

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants