[R Sharp (r-sharp)]

PR Summary

#235 lists false failures - these new unit tests represent some of them.

Sci/Tech Reviewer: Erica Neininger (@ericaneininger)
Code Reviewer:

#235 identified some false failures thrown up by the UMDP3 checker. These new tests use the examples given by users to ensure similar failures don't creep back in.
No code has been changed, because it turns out the failures given had been fixed by #234, hence these trests all pass already.

• fixes UMDP3 checker incorrectly identifies ..... #235

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

• This change has been tested appropriately (please describe)
  Alongside the new unit tests, the script was run against a fresh WC of the UM (over a loop on directories src/*/*) and the the failures highlighted in UMDP3 checker incorrectly identifies ..... #235 no longer occur.
  The majority of remaining failures are either :
• "single program module" - which is probable a change of case between the declaration of SUBROUTINE name and the same name in the END SUBROUTINE line.
• "line too long" - which is hopefully self evident.

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)

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)

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
• Code quality standards have been met
• Tests are adequate and have passed
• Security considerations have been addressed
• Performance impact is acceptable

[Erica Neininger (ericaneininger)]

Looks like sensible testing of the issues reported to me - just a single typo (twice) in a comment and a possibly irrelevant comment. Thanks.

[Erica Neininger (ericaneininger)]

I'm not sure if this matters to the test, but the precise error which I reported was a closed bracket list of strings - so ['unset', 'unset']. Your test string doesn't include the closing bracket - but it probably represents the problem well enough anyway.

[R Sharp (r-sharp)]

I've updated the text of the code tested, and fortunately (for me) the test(s) still pass.
Also accepted the spellinge correction. Whilst one was a comment, the other is the test name which get's reported if/when the test fails. Twice because, guess what - I write the comment, make the test, copy the text into the list of names...

Thanks for spotting those, the missing ] was an excellent spot.