Maternal transfer - #71
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
This PR updates example and core ecology/contaminants code around “maternal transfer”/migration handling, and refreshes repository documentation/log artifacts to reflect recent development work.
Changes:
- Adjusts migration/movement logic and initialization in
atmovement.c, including handling for returning migrants and stock selection. - Adds defensive/diagnostic changes in contaminant settler handling and allocation initialization (
atContaminants.c,atForcedMovement.c). - Updates examples/docs: makes the ReactiveAtlantis R example use project-relative paths, updates
CHANGELOG.md, and removes valgrind log artifacts.
Reviewed changes
Copilot reviewed 5 out of 9 changed files in this pull request and generated 4 comments.
Show a summary per file
| File | Description |
|---|---|
| example/VMPA_setas_biol_fishing_Trunk.prm | Minor formatting/line alignment tweak in the example parameter file. |
| example/valgrind14.log | Removes committed valgrind output (log artifact). |
| example/valgrind12.log | Removes committed valgrind output (log artifact). |
| example/valgrind11.log | Removes committed valgrind output (log artifact). |
| example/ReactiveAtlantisToolExample.R | Switches to here::here() paths for a more portable R example. |
| CHANGELOG.md | Adds commit-level changelog entries describing recent fixes/changes. |
| atlantis/atecology/atmovement.c | Initializes variables and adjusts migration-return/recruit handling. |
| atlantis/atecology/atForcedMovement.c | Changes allocation from malloc to calloc for force-move entries. |
| atlantis/atecology/atContaminants.c | Adds additional cohort/flag handling and bounds checks in settler contaminant logic. |
Suppressed comments (2)
example/ReactiveAtlantisToolExample.R:41
outputFolder_originalis referenced here, but that directory doesn’t exist in the repository (the included baseline isoutputFolderPristine). This makes the example fail unless the reviewer guesses the intended path.
prm.file <- here::here("example","VMPA_setas_biol_fishing_Trunk.prm")
diet.file <- here::here("example","outputFolder_original","outputSETASDietCheck.txt")
food.web(diet.file, grp.csv)
CHANGELOG.md:35
- Typo: “bing used” should be “being used”.
- if (stock_id < 0) {stock_id = 0;} so stock id would be defined before bing used as it was causing a memory loss
💡 Add a code-review agent skill or configure MCP servers for context-aware, tailored reviews. Learn more in the docs.
andybeet
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@hmorzaria. Not sure i understand what this is.
It is also a PR into main not dev
Also it looks like your other reviewer, (copilot) has multiple suggestions for your review.
Co-authored-by: Copilot Autofix powered by AI <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Copilot Autofix powered by AI <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Copilot Autofix powered by AI <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>
|
@andybeet I corrected the pull request so it is going to DEV. This pull request was supposed to be only for the CHANGELOG; the other changes are in #70, which Beth already reviewed and merged into DEV. I was expecting Copilot to only look at the CHANGELOG, but it looked at all the changes in the branch within #70. I accepted Copilot suggestions that fixed redundancies, except one that I think changes the code from what Beth had already reviewed. |
|
Still not following. If Beth already approved a PR which adds this content in |
|
Closed to make a documentation only pull request |
Your commits explain the
who,what,whereandwhenof these changes. Your code shows thehow. You do not need to reiterate this. This PR should complete the big picture by telling thewhy.Justification
Updated CHANGELOG to match recent merge in dev
If it fixes a bug or resolves a feature request, be sure to link to the issue below.
Types of changes
What types of changes does your code introduce? Put an
xin the boxes that applyDocumentation
Further comments
Reviewer instructions:
Assign at least 2 reviewers:
assigneesfieldPlease detail the process reviewers will need to follow to properly test these changes. It is especially helpful to identify the exact code needed to conduct a local build/review/test and to specify any aspects of the testing that may not be obvious.