Adding fortitude rules2

[mo-lucy-gordon]

PR Summary

Sci/Tech Reviewer: Pierre Siddall (@Pierre-siddall)
Code Reviewer:

1. I have fixed some errors and updated the configuration files to use the rules associated with said errors universally/ without exceptions.
   The following rules and their associated errors were dealt with:

• Trailing whitespaces (S101) (3ebb3f4 and 7a6a717)

• Deprecated relational operators (MOD021) (b380978)

• Missing double colons (S071) (1f2d5e5)

2. "Preview rules" that are not yet used, were taken out to avoid warnings until we upgrade to the latest Fortitude version.
   The preview rules removed were: C031, C032, C043, C051, C082.

3. I moved rule descriptors to be alongside their selection in the main rose-stem/app configuration file. (8d928bf)

N.B. Although these fortitude tests being added passed before submission for review, any new additions to the trunk after that may cause fortitude errors, so those will be need to be fixed by me/the developer while the trunk is reserved for this ticket to be committed.

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

• I have tested this change locally, using the LFRic Apps rose-stem suite
• If any tests fail (rose-stem or CI) the reason is understood and acceptable (e.g. kgo changes)
• I have added tests to cover new functionality as appropriate (e.g. system tests, unit tests, etc.)
• Any new tests have been assigned an appropriate amount of compute resource and have been allocated to an appropriate testing group (i.e. the developer tests are for jobs which use a small amount of compute resource and complete in a matter of minutes)

trac.log

Test Suite Results - lfric_apps - lapps_fr3/run17

Suite Information

Item	Value
Suite Name	lapps_fr3/run17
Suite User	lucy.gordon
Workflow Start	2026-06-09T17:32:18
Groups Run	developer

Dependency	Reference	Main Like
casim	MetOffice/casim@2026.03.2	True
jules	MetOffice/jules@3647a42	True
lfric_apps	mo-lucy-gordon/lfric_apps@adding_fortitude_rules2	False
lfric_core	MetOffice/lfric_core@9c85548	True
moci	MetOffice/moci@2026.03.2	True
SimSys_Scripts	MetOffice/SimSys_Scripts@3e2998b	True
socrates	MetOffice/socrates@2026.03.2	True
socrates-spectral	MetOffice/socrates-spectral@2026.03.2	True
ukca	MetOffice/ukca@1cdb9c2	True

Task Information

✅ succeeded tasks - 1198

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)

Performance Impact

• Performance of the code has been considered and, if applicable, suitable performance measurements have been conducted

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)

Documentation

• Where appropriate I have updated documentation related to this change and confirmed that it builds correctly

PSyclone Approval

• If you have edited any PSyclone-related code (e.g. PSyKAl-lite, Kernel interface, optimisation scripts, LFRic data structure code) then please contact the TCD Team

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
• CLA compliance has been confirmed
• Code quality standards have been met
• Tests are adequate and have passed
• Documentation is complete and accurate
• Security considerations have been addressed
• Performance impact is acceptable

[thomasmelvin]

All looks good to me

[DrTVockerodtMO]

Adjoint changes look good to me!

[Mike Hobson (mike-hobson)]

Looks good to me

[Pierre Siddall (Pierre-siddall)]

I'm happy that my previous comments have been contextualized and corrected, which means this looks good to head into code review :).