Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Update subset-mesh capability of the subset_data tool with nco/esmf two-line approach #1884

Draft
wants to merge 10 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

slevis-lmwg
Copy link
Contributor

Description of changes

Starting from #1735 I will introduce to the subset_data tool a two-line subset-mesh approach mentioned elsewhere, e.g. here.

Until this PR is merged, one can use the "two-line approach" manually, as shown in a couple of detailed examples here.

Specific notes

Contributors other than yourself, if any:
@jkshuman

CTSM Issues Fixed (include github issue #): #1513

negin513 and others added 10 commits April 28, 2022 09:13
Rework fates test definitions and add new fates tests

This tag includes a number of updates to the fates test definitions and test list to gain more coverage:

(1) Reorder and update the fates test definitions so that fates satellite phenology mode
can be configured for cases using a compset.

(2) Add a long-term exact restart test to catch issues that may arise due to updates to
fates procedure calls during end of year simulation dates.

(3) Add a no-competition + fixed biogeography, non-satellite phenology test definition to provide
additional mode combination configuration.

(4) Update the fates externals tag to incorporate a fix a vegetation temperature exact restart
issue discovered while implementing (1) above.

(5) Truncate all testmods starting with "Fates" to mitigate running over the limits on the length
of testnames, typically when specifying custom `test_id` using `run_sys_test`.

(6) Updates the expected failures list.

Resolved conflicts:
python/ctsm/subset_data.py
@slevis-lmwg slevis-lmwg self-assigned this Oct 27, 2022
@wwieder
Copy link
Contributor

wwieder commented Oct 27, 2022 via email

@slevis-lmwg
Copy link
Contributor Author

slevis-lmwg commented Oct 27, 2022 via email

@slevis-lmwg
Copy link
Contributor Author

In this morning's SE meeting (2022/10/27), after some back and forth, we concluded that I should wait and that

  • this PR may be wasted effort, because ultimately we may return to Negin's native Python approach for subset-mesh, mainly due to the user-facing complexities of requiring nco and esmf to run with the "two-line approach"
  • @ekluzek will follow up with @negin513 to get an understanding of the status of her unpushed version

@jkshuman
Copy link
Contributor

@billsacks given that this subsetting capability is to obtain regions for use with CTSM and NUOPC, can we assume that the user will have both nco and esmf?
in the meantime I will test the workflow provided by @slevisconsulting

@billsacks
Copy link
Member

billsacks commented Oct 27, 2022

can we assume that the user will have both nco and esmf?

We can assume that the user has esmf, but not necessarily nco. However, even for esmf, the challenge is ensuring that the user's path is set up correctly to have the esmf tools in their path. I imagine for most users, they have no idea how to load the appropriate esmf module to ensure this, instead relying on CIME to do the correct module loads behind the scenes – but that mechanism wouldn't be invoked for this standalone tool.

My feeling is that @slevisconsulting 's approach is an excellent stop-gap measure, but I began to feel that it doesn't seem like a great long-term solution because of these portability (or user education) issues, so it felt to me that spending a day to implement something temporary like this might not be a good use of time. (That day could be better spent working on the python-based solution.)

@jkshuman
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks for the explanation @billsacks I understand your concerns on this with regard to relying on CIME, and that these CIME loads are not used for this stand alone tool. Given your explanation of this, it is likely to eventually fail due to the disconnect between modules.

Should @negin513 PR #1735 go back onto the NUOPC project board?

@billsacks
Copy link
Member

Should @negin513 PR #1735 go back onto the NUOPC project board?

I put it back on the upcoming tags board. The relevant issue is still on the NUOPC (dropping MCT) project board: https://github.com/orgs/ESCOMP/projects/2/views/12

@negin513
Copy link
Contributor

I am back working on #1735 again today and I will try to get #1735 done by next week.

@ekluzek
Copy link
Collaborator

ekluzek commented Oct 27, 2022

@negin513 that's awesome to hear. We do want to be respectful of your time in your new position. I'm wondering if you and I could meet next week to go over where you are at in the process? Even if you finish it out, it would be good for you to explain it to me. Thanks so much...

@negin513
Copy link
Contributor

negin513 commented Nov 1, 2022

@ekluzek Thanks for your message. I would like to give a quick presentation at this CTSM SE meeting (Nov 3 2022) about how this works and what additional capabilities it has.

@ekluzek
Copy link
Collaborator

ekluzek commented Nov 1, 2022

@negin513 awesome. I'll add your presentation as one of the first things in the agenda. It'll be good to hear from you on Thursday. Take care.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants