PFT added through xml

[sdeherto]

This is not very high priority but I recently came across some illogical behaviour within ED2 runs which could be handled at some point. I was building some new simulations from previous scripts that used config.xml to use a subset of parameters specific to PFT 3. Some of the test I was doing included setting up simulations with single PFTs (e.g. simulation with only PFT 2). However as I was still providing the xml config (see below) the simulation was performed with two PFTs (both PFT 2 and 3) even though in the ED2IN my INCLUDE_PFT only stated PFT 2.

I understand why this issue was caused, my config explicitly adds include_pft to 1. However it is not logical for the model to allow this and to implicitly overwrite the ED2IN INCLUDE_PFT flag via the xml flags.

I performed an additional test simulation where I removed the include pft flag from my config files and that also works. So maybe it's something to think about whether this flag should either be fully moved to xml or removed there so the number of PFTs are only to be changed in ED2IN to avoid these issues.

3 20.8 52.0 0.3016 1

[mpaiao]

I agree that this is inconsistent. I'd say INCLUDE_THESE_PFT should remain in ED2IN (for runs using the default parameters), and if xml finds a PFT that is not listed in INCLUDE_THESE_PFT, it should follow the instructions provided through PFT_1ST_CHECK (i.e., stop the run, add the PFT or ignore it). PFT_1ST_CHECK is currently used when reading cohort files (css), but I don't see why it can't be extended to check both css and xml files. But we can see what others think and go from there.