Remove short-circuit evaluation from IF statement

[tinyendian]

PR Summary

Sci/Tech Reviewer: @thomasmelvin
Code Reviewer: @TeranIvy

This PR replaces short circuit evaluation in a Fortran IF statement, which some compilers do not support (and the Fortran doesn't seem to define, e.g., https://fortranwiki.org/fortran/show/short-circuiting and https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Fortran-Compiler/IFX-AND-operator-evaluates-2nd-condition-even-if-first-one-is/m-p/1594666), with a default-override-style construct to resolve a segfault with the Intel OneAPI ifx compiler, closing #263. Similar constructs seem to have been used in other places to avoid this problem.

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 [should not be needed in this case]
• My changes generate no new warnings [true for ifx compiler]
• All automated checks in the CI pipeline have completed successfully

Testing

• I have tested this change locally, using the LFRic Apps rose-stem suite [ESNZ site tests]
• 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 - lfric_apps_short_circuit/run1

Suite Information

Item	Value
Suite Name	lfric_apps_short_circuit/run1
Suite User	hayekws
Workflow Start	2026-02-16T01:23:57
Groups Run	all

Dependency	Reference	Main Like
casim	MetOffice/casim@2025.12.1	True
jules	MetOffice/jules@2025.12.1	True
lfric_apps	tinyendian/lfric_apps@263_short_circuit_eval	False
lfric_core	MetOffice/lfric_core@2025.12.1	True
moci	MetOffice/moci@2025.12.1	True
SimSys_Scripts	MetOffice/SimSys_Scripts@2025.12.1	True
socrates	MetOffice/socrates@2025.12.1	True
socrates-spectral	MetOffice/socrates-spectral@2025.12.1	True
ukca	MetOffice/ukca@2025.12.1	True

Task Information

✅ succeeded tasks - 41

Security Considerations

• I have reviewed my changes for potential security issues
• [] Sensitive data is properly handled (if applicable) [N/A]
• [] Authentication and authorisation are properly implemented (if applicable) [N/A]

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 [N/A]

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 [N/A]

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

[tinyendian]

@thomasmelvin would you be willing to do the SciTech review? I'll contact the team otherwise.

[thomasmelvin]

@thomasmelvin would you be willing to do the SciTech review? I'll contact the team otherwise.

Yep no problem, assign it to me when you're ready

[tinyendian]

Thanks @thomasmelvin, the PR should be good to go, but I don't have permission to reassign PRs in the Met Office repos - can you assign it to yourself?

[thomasmelvin]

This all looks good. Passes Sci/Tech review. Ready for code review (when someone is assigned)

[tinyendian]

Hi @TeranIvy I saw that you were mentioned for CodeReview for this PR - I cannot assign this ticket myself but thought I'd ping you in case you weren't aware. Thanks!

[thomasmelvin]

All looks good

[TeranIvy]

Hi @TeranIvy I saw that you were mentioned for CodeReview for this PR - I cannot assign this ticket myself but thought I'd ping you in case you weren't aware. Thanks!

Thanks, @tinyendian! I looked at the code and it all seems fine, so I put myself in the commit queue and I'll start testing whilst waiting. FYI, it may be next week at this point judging from the queue length.