Adding fortitude

[mo-lucy-gordon]

PR Summary

Sci/Tech Reviewer: @james-bruten-mo
Code Reviewer: @Pierre-siddall

This adds the fortitude linter to the test suite, and enables one rule to run to demonstrate basic functionality. Subsequent branches will add more rules and testing.

Associated with MetOffice/lfric_core#217

This addition will mean Fortitude will run when the "scripts"/ "developer"/ "all" groups, or "fortitude_linter" group itself is run with the Cylc test suite.

The rule added here can be referenced Fortitude documentation website here: https://fortitude.readthedocs.io/en/stable/rules/trailing-whitespace/

For reference, these are some example outputs and errors from when fortitude runs:

• No errors output:
  https://cylchub/services/cylc-review/view/lucy.gordon?&suite=lapps_add_gh_no_errors%2Frun10&no_fuzzy_time=0&path=log/job/1/fortitude_linter/01/job.out

• One lint error outputs:
  https://cylchub/services/cylc-review/view/lucy.gordon?&suite=lapps_add_gh_no_errors%2Frun8&no_fuzzy_time=0&path=log/job/1/fortitude_linter/01/job.err

• Non-lint error outputs:
  https://cylchub/services/cylc-review/view/lucy.gordon?&suite=lapps_add_gh_no_errors%2Frun9&no_fuzzy_time=0&path=log/job/1/fortitude_linter/01/job.err

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 Core rose-stem suite
• If required (e.g. API changes) I have also run the LFRic Apps test suite using this branch
• 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_add_gh_no_errors/run5

Suite Information

Item	Value
Suite Name	lapps_add_gh_no_errors/run5
Suite User	lucy.gordon
Workflow Start	2026-01-15T18:43:49
Groups Run	all

Dependency	Reference	Main Like
casim	MetOffice/casim@2025.12.1	True
jules	MetOffice/jules@2025.12.1	True
lfric_apps	mo-lucy-gordon/lfric_apps@adding_fortitude	False
lfric_core	MetOffice/lfric_core@5d4d72f	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 - 1457

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