settle on IO naming scheme

[mahf708]

We should likely settle on a naming scheme for our IO. Currently, we have three different file classes of interest, with differing schemes

file type	current pattern	purpose
restart	[case_name].scream.r.[restart_spec].[date_spec].nc	restart simulation from a checkpoint
restart history	[any_string].rhist.[restart_spec].[date_spec].nc	restart simulation from a checkpoint
history	[any_string].[output_spec].[date_spec].nc	save simulation output

Proposed changes

file type	proposed pattern
restart	[case_name].[model_name].r.[restart_spec].[date_spec].nc
restart history	[case_name].[model_name].rhist.[any_string].[output_spec].[restart_spec].[date_spec].nc
history	[case_name].[model_name].h.[any_string].[output_spec].[date_spec].nc

Some notes

• any_string will come from the yaml files, e.g., myNcQcQr
• output_spec and restart_spec are EAMxx-specific, e.g., INSTANT.nhours_x3, for output and restart frequency
• restart history takes both restart and output specs in its name to avoid bugs like #2981
• model_name is scream for now, but we should change that to eamxx at some point

Rationale

• this will make us follow E3SM conventions while maintaining our own custom IO settings, a decent compromise
• this will enable us to make use of extensive infrastructure tooling (e.g., short-term archive, which is good for production but equally important for testing) without long-standing silent bugs...

Comment and vote below!

[bartgol]

For rhist files, you have [case_name].[model_name].rhist.[any_string].[output_spec].[restart_spec].[date_spec].nc. I don't think we need to put [restart_spec] in the filename. The driver (or, better the OM) can reconstruct the rest from runtime options, but with this pattern it would have to know restart_specs of the previous run, which is annoying. Besides, with [any_string].[output_spec] in the filename, we are already guaranteed to be unique. Also, without [restart_spec], the .h file name is very close to the .rhist file name, so we can easily match them.

[bartgol]

Side question: do ppl prefer .h or .hist? I don't have a strong preference, but since we have .rhist, having .hist may make things more consistent? Dunno, just a thought. I'm fine either way.

[PeterCaldwell]

Maybe just .h and .rh? To call them history files feels anachronistic to me anyways, so might as well bury the meaning entirely while minimizing name length?