590 apps specific

[Joerg Henrichs (hiker)]

This allows lfric_atm to use lfric-atm-specific compilation option.

[Joerg Henrichs (hiker)]

Yaswant Pradhan (@yaswant) , Matthew Hambley (@MatthewHambley) , Sam Clarke-Green (@t00sa) - I have no idea why the CLA check failed, as far as I can see I have signed the CONTRIBUTORS file:

| GitHub Username | Real Name       | Affiliation                      |
|-----------------|-----------------|----------------------------------|
...
| hiker           | Joerg Henrichs  | Bureau of Meteorology, Australia |

With git config showing: user.name=Joerg Henrichs

Otherwise ready for review.

[Yaswant Pradhan (yaswant)]

Yaswant Pradhan (Yaswant Pradhan (@yaswant)) , Matthew Hambley (Matthew Hambley (@MatthewHambley)) , Sam Clarke-Green (Sam Clarke-Green (@t00sa)) - I have no idea why the CLA check failed, as far as I can see I have signed the CONTRIBUTORS file:

| GitHub Username | Real Name       | Affiliation                      |
|-----------------|-----------------|----------------------------------|
...
| hiker           | Joerg Henrichs  | Bureau of Meteorology, Australia |

With git config showing: user.name=Joerg Henrichs

Otherwise ready for review.

Joerg Henrichs (@hiker) I cant see an entry for you in the https://github.com/MetOffice/fab/blob/main/CONTRIBUTORS.md?plain=1 or in your PR branch. If you update that file in your branch the check should pass.

If you have signed the CLA in a different PR, maybe that is not merge in main yet so the cla-checker cant see it? Once that PR is merged, the error should disappear.

[Joerg Henrichs (hiker)]

Yes indeed, I looked at the wrong branch - sorry. I might just add it to all my PRs, to give you flexibility in which order to review them :) Thanks!

[mo-lucy-gordon]

I have some small suggested changes for the documentation file but otherwise the documentation looks good and builds correctly.

Is there a plan to change the unit tests imports that fail in later PRs?

I ran the unit test in test_fab_base.py and that produces a bunch of errors but they seem to be from previously added code, so as long as you're happy that they are still there that's fine?

[Joerg Henrichs (hiker)]

I have some small suggested changes for the documentation file but otherwise the documentation looks good and builds correctly.

Thanks, great job. All fixed.

Is there a plan to change the unit tests imports that fail in later PRs?

I ran the unit test in test_fab_base.py and that produces a bunch of errors but they seem to be from previously added code, so as long as you're happy that they are still there that's fine?

There should not be any failure. If you merged different PRs in, some bugs might happen (i.e. one PR changing something, another PR is using the now old/outdated way). But this PR itself (I just updated it) runs fine for me, and I just went to a different platform (to try avoiding anything I might have setup and forgotten about in my development platform). Can you provide details?

[mo-lucy-gordon]

I'm happy with these changes

[mo-lucy-gordon]

I have some small suggested changes for the documentation file but otherwise the documentation looks good and builds correctly.

Thanks, great job. All fixed.

Is there a plan to change the unit tests imports that fail in later PRs?
I ran the unit test in test_fab_base.py and that produces a bunch of errors but they seem to be from previously added code, so as long as you're happy that they are still there that's fine?

There should not be any failure. If you merged different PRs in, some bugs might happen (i.e. one PR changing something, another PR is using the now old/outdated way). But this PR itself (I just updated it) runs fine for me, and I just went to a different platform (to try avoiding anything I might have setup and forgotten about in my development platform). Can you provide details?

Yes sorry I had a problem with my environment but once that was sorted the test passed as expected.