The image check failures that show up are consistent with the changes from https://github.com/E3SM-Project/e3sm_diags/pull/851. We can update the expected results accordingly, but I'm hesitant to do that until we get #633 merged to correct the lnd issue. So, I will do that after #633 merges.
Required:
[x] Product Management: I have confirmed with the stakeholders that the objectives above are correct and complete.
[ ] Testing: I have added or modified at least one "min-case" configuration file to test this change. Every objective above is represented in at least one cfg.
This is specifically part of weekly testing.
[x] Testing: I have considered likely and/or severe edge cases and have included them in testing.
2. Are the implementation details accurate & efficient?
Required:
[x] Logic: I have visually inspected the entire pull request myself.
[ ] Logic: I have left GitHub comments highlighting important pieces of code logic. I have had these code blocks reviewed by at least one other team member.
3. Is this well documented?
Required:
[ ] Documentation: by looking at the docs, a new user could easily understand the functionality introduced by this pull request.
This is non-user facing.
4. Is this code clean?
Required:
[x] Readability: The code is as simple as possible and well-commented, such that a new team member could understand what's happening.
[x] Pre-commit checks: All the pre-commits checks have passed.
Issue resolution
Select one: This pull request is...
1. Does this do what we want it to do?
Objectives:
image_check_failuresdirectories weren't generating properly.lndissue will be resolved by #633.lndissue. So, I will do that after #633 merges.Required:
2. Are the implementation details accurate & efficient?
Required:
3. Is this well documented?
Required:
4. Is this code clean?
Required: