Define test suite for remap_restarts.py

[tclune]

This is in reference to PR #238.

@weiyuan-jiang @gmao-rreichle @sanAkel @sdrabenh @biljanaorescanin

We should define a small suite of test cases that the regrid.py must pass each time the tool is to be updated. Nothing automated for the moment. But if possible it could be a short script (shell or python) that drives this tool for a few resolutions and such. The point is not to be exhaustive, but to perhaps aim to toggle each major option to get some coverage. True corner cases should be left for subsequent work.

Preference is for discussion to be here. But reach out on Teams if you have concerns.

[tclune]

I should add, that wherever possible this suite should use coarse resolutions. For input this is difficult, but hopefully for output we can even do things like C24. (Speaking from ignorance.) Of course some direct comparison with regrid.pl results is necessary, but ... hopefully those can also be at coarse resolution.

We also need to distinguish between crashing and getting wrong results. Testing and fixing crashes is a relatively fast process and should take priority. Then when things are more stable we can invest the large effort and resources and checking/fixing numerical results.

[sanAkel]

@yvikhlya, @zhaobin74, we should consider creating a test restart set that originates from MERRA-2 ocean/S2S-v3.

Ignoring the ocean restarts, we should think of all else, incl. sea ice restarts.

[gmao-rreichle]

@tclune: Thanks for initiating the discussion. Having a workable set of tests for regrid (both the pl and py scripts) has been a concern from the beginning of PR #238 (and related PR https://github.com/GEOS-ESM/GEOSgcm_GridComp/pull/571). In a nutshell, regrid is used by many different users in many different configurations. It is very difficult to assert that things are ok, and the impact on users of breaking regrid is considerable.

Our plan has been to first make sure the Catchment restarts are ok (testing by the land group) and then broaden the test users to include @sdrabenh, @sanAkel, and maybe also someone from the ADAS group, perhaps Joe Stassi. We're in the middle of this now.

It's impossible and not desirable to be exhaustive in our list of tests, but we do need to make sure we capture the most frequent use cases.

I'm not sure that coarse-resolution output restarts are good tests. The land is very heterogeneous, and when land restarts are regridded to, say, c24, nothing will make scientific sense. I don't think regrid is prohibitively expensive, and I would advocate to not use anything coarser than 0.5 deg. We also need to test CatchmentCN regridding (@gmao-jkolassa can help with testing).

Ultimately, before the two PRs can be merged, @sdrabenh will have to agree that we did not break the (old) perl regrid script. It now looks like this may be trivially 0-diff because the PR no longer touches anything that has to do with regrid.pl (to be confirmed by someone other than me). It has taken some time to agree that we should simply add the py capability and not touch the perl script and and the existing F90 programs in the GEOSgcm_GridComp.

Then when things are more stable we can invest the large effort and resources and checking/fixing numerical results.

I'm not sure it's a good idea to merge a branch that runs but produces wrong results. If power users such as @sanAkel are eager to help with testing, they can use the branch. Once we merge into develop, any old user might employ the py script without realizing that it has not been fully tested. Again, regrid is a special case because it's widely used and any error might have a big negative impact on general users.

[tclune]

@gmao-rreichle I generally agree with what you wrote above, but a few responses.

I would prioritize the easiest use cases, which might well not include catchments? (I'm outside my domain knowledge here.) I.e., what can we get working first with some confidence to use as a backbone, while remaining aware of the other complexities that must be allowed for?

It's impossible and not desirable to be exhaustive in our list of tests, but we do need to make sure we capture the most frequent use cases.

Yes - certainly all common cases must be tested at some point before mainstream use. They may or may not all be part of this basic test suite I'm proposing. Just like we can't test all GEOS use cases with every PR. We'll need to prioritize based on frequency and/or orthogonality of the tests for coverage.

I'm not sure that coarse-resolution output restarts are good tests. The land is very heterogeneous, and when land restarts are regridded to, say, c24, nothing will make scientific sense. I don't think regrid is prohibitively expensive, and I would advocate to not use anything coarser than 0.5 deg. We also need to test CatchmentCN regridding (@gmao-jkolassa can help with testing).

Software verification tests are not about doing science. Simply the ability to generate c24 results without crashing is an amazingly useful test. It runs fast and does not require a domain expert to evaluate. Such tests are of course limited, but why waste the time of a domain expert (or computing resources) unless such basic things are functioning. Of course, fast is a relative term. Can someone give me a sense of how long a typical run takes and on how many nodes? And then can we estimate how much faster a coarse test might run?

Ultimately the verification tests can aid in validation by checking 0-diff from established results. These can have some overhead to manage though as intentional diffs enter the implementation over time.

I'm not sure it's a good idea to merge a branch that runs but produces wrong results.

To be fair, essentially every PR on GEOS produces wrong results. Do not discount the ability to manage multiple tickets against this tool instead one long linear thread that we have in that other PR. I agree that some minimal functionality should exist. From what @sdrabenh told me yesterday, I don't think we are ready for validation type tests. Ordinary uses apparently fail completely (crash), and we need to focus on those first.

[tclune]

@sdrabenh wrote:

@tclune @weiyuan-jiang defining a minimal test suite is a bit nebulous with such an all-encompassing tool like this. From my point of view, the new python script should be able to demonstrate comparable results to the pearl script for current (Icarus/Jason) datasets and resolutions. Regarding the functionality of the tool, it should be able to:

1. Run irrespective of what the working directory is
2. Resolve all relative or absolute paths correctly
3. Recognize whether it is running on login or interactive nodes and execute accordingly
4. Provide the correct/same default values for wemin, wemout, zoom, etc as the pearl script did
5. Accept command line arguments without requiring a yaml file so it doesn't break existing code such as this
6. Demonstrate consistent results whether running the script interactively, or with command line arguments, or using a yaml file

From an AGCM point of view, the most important atmospheric resolutions are C90, C180, C360, and C720. I would think that regridding between higher horizontal resolutions would better demonstrate whether the script is working correctly since they inherently contain more information. We frequently regrid between 72, 91, 137, and 181 levels. In fact, Bill's feature branch is aimed toward non 72-level resolutions, thus all those experiments. Lastly, it is common to regrid between the 4 data ocean resolutions based on whether we are running an OPS-like experiment, EMIPs, AMIPs, etc. Again, just seeing a few cases here demonstrating 0-diffness/equivalency with the pearl script would go a long way in establishing confidence this script is working correctly.

My wish list for this script (after meeting minimal requirements) would be to:

1. Automatically determine as much information about the input datasets as possible and pre-fill the defaults. In an ideal world the user shouldn't have to know anything about the input dataset, although I'm sure there are limitations to this.
2. Output the *.CMD text file the pearl script did. This was helpful.
3. When running interactively, provide the operation summary for the user to okay just like the pearl script did
4. Add back the coupled ocean resolutions - @sanAkel thoughts here?

[removed ">" characters that made the comment look like it was only a quote from an earlier comment; @gmao-rreichle, 21 July 2022]

[tclune]

@sdrabenh

Many of the things that you list above can be captured in a very small number of tests. Some are feature requests that should be handled after the initial PR.

Some specific comments:

1. I do not understand the bit about "accept command line arguments" breaking existing code. Nothing should be using this script at this time. The PR will not break "existing" code.
2. recognition of being on an interactive node is a feature request and should be deferred for now. (High priority of course.)
3. Output of *.CMD is also a feature request and should be deferred.
4. Ditto for operation summary (unless this is a means to verify the script completed "successfully")

[tclune]

OK - let me be more concrete. Can someone suggest/specify a single set of parameters that exercises regrid.py in a minimal fashion. Least features used, lowest resolution allowed. Verification that the script completes without crashing on these inputs becomes the 1st test in the suite.

Variations on the above then become additional tests:

• different resolution
• different path (eg relative vs absolute)
• different "configuration": (someone propose a list)

And so on. Once we have this list and script completes, we can then turn back to validation issues. As everyone likes to say, we cannot validate everything. But surely there are just a handful of canonical cases that could be run to give confidence in the answers. Please name them. These should not have variants for different resolutions and such. Just concrete use cases.

At that point we should merge the PR. And then start opening issues for additional features and bug reports on additional cases.

[sanAkel]

👋 all! @yvikhlya, @zhaobin74 and myself need to huddle up reg coupled set. From what I can anticipate now it would be few atmospheric configurations only, for e.g.,

1. C12 (atm) x 5-deg (ocn)
2. C90 x 1-deg
3. C180 x 0.25-deg

⤴️ may be a wish list, I suppose atm-only would be a good start.

[biljanaorescanin]

@tclune I am actively working on testing this with @weiyuan-jiang, I believe he is working on adding some of the options ( more like adding options of what user can run) and fix few bugs we found (default wemin for example). It has been a process because some options during testing work and are zero diff. It helps that cases Scott was running are different than mine, so that reveled few more issues. Just changing one thing is exercising the least... just changing resolution C720 to C360 that was zero diff for the two scripts. Same for just changing levels from 72 to 181. Changing land option from INL to ICA. Those were all zero diff in my combinations. Scott found combination that fails, he tried something that had wemin default set wrong (GITNL option). He also ran different bcs option then one I was testing so that might as well be an issue. It just takes time to test it all, there are so many combinations.

[biljanaorescanin]

also I still didn't run/test any of the DAS tags...

[sdrabenh]

Some specific comments:

1. I do not understand the bit about "accept command line arguments" breaking existing code. Nothing should be using this script at this time. The PR will not break "existing" code.

I should have re-phrased this statement. You are correct. Technically nothing is broken at the moment since we have not updated the gcm scripts to use this yet. However, this is an important feature to retain and will need to be resolved moving ahead. I tend to lean towards releasing a script the resembles its final form with minor bugs rather than adding features like this after the fact.

2. recognition of being on an interactive node is a feature request and should be deferred for now. (High priority of course.)

That is your call, but it would certainly help streamline the testing of multiple configurations without waiting in the queue.

[sanAkel]

That is your call, but it would certainly help streamline the testing of multiple configurations without waiting in the queue.

This should be handled via workflows. (I guess that's what have in mind @sdrabenh ?)

[sdrabenh]

That is your call, but it would certainly help streamline the testing of multiple configurations without waiting in the queue.

This should be handled via workflows. (I guess that's what have in mind @sdrabenh ?)

What I meant is that regrid.py should be smart enough to modify the job directives according to the current interactive session and execute the job scripts immediately. No need for a queue or waiting. That should be relatively straight forward.

[yvikhlya]

Would it be difficult to add an option to specify a path to input/output tile files and clsm directory explicitly, instead of using code names? This would be handy, because this would allow us to work with testing grids which are not in the default locations. I have this possibility in my little script, just using symbolic links: https://github.com/GEOS-ESM/GEOSgcm_GridComp/blob/feature/aogcm/GEOSagcm_GridComp/GEOSphysics_GridComp/GEOSsurface_GridComp/Utils/mk_restarts/regrid_sfc_rst.py but of course this can be done a more sophisticated way using config file.

[weiyuan-jiang]

@sanAkel @sdrabenh Would you please provide me a couple of cases that I can test against ? I am not familiar with regrid.pl and don't want to produce some wrong "standard" cases. Thank both of you for commenting on the regrid_py.

[sanAkel]

@sanAkel @sdrabenh Would you please provide me a couple of cases that I can test against ? I am not familiar with regrid.pl and don't want to produce some wrong "standard" cases. Thank both of you for commenting on the regrid_py.

Please start with a list from @sdrabenh. If anything breaks for uncoupled, it's a no go!

[sdrabenh]

@sanAkel @sdrabenh Would you please provide me a couple of cases that I can test against ? I am not familiar with regrid.pl and don't want to produce some wrong "standard" cases. Thank both of you for commenting on the regrid_py.

In my opinion, the best way to test if your script is working correctly is to to run regrid.pl and regrid.py on the same datasets and compare the results. That way you will know the internal logic is consistent. My approach would be to pick any set of restarts from these:

1. OPS: /home/dao_ops/f5294_fp/run/.../archive/rs/Y2022/M06/f5294_fp.rst.*_21z.tar
2. XEXP: /discover/nobackup/projects/gmao/dadev/dao_it/archive/x0046a/rs/Y2022/M01/*.rst.*_21z.tar
3. EMIP: /discover/nobackup/projects/gmao/g6dev/ltakacs/MERRA2_NewLand/restarts/AMIP/M05/restarts.e*.tar
4. G2G: /discover/nobackup/projects/gmao/g6dev/sdrabenh/Replay_Experiments/JM_v10.22.1_L072_C360_RepX46a/restarts/*.tar

and regrid the atmosphere to any other resolution and levels, and regrid the ocean to something different. It really doesn't matter what you choose as long as the results from the pearl script and the python script are consistent. If things are non-zero diff you should use higher resolutions to interrogate how different the result is - and most importantly whether that is expected or not. That would be my approach to testing the AGCM/dataocean.

[gmao-rreichle]

@mathomp4, @weiyuan-jiang, I didn't think #267 was going to be merged so promptly and didn't get a chance to review. After taking a look just now, I think we need to add at least one more test case that includes the EASE grid and remaps only the catch and vegdyn restarts (as needed for offline GEOSldas applications).
Since the coarsest resolution is 36 km, this won't be a "small" test case, but there are entire programs that do not get exercised with the two cube-sphere test cases that were just merged via #267. I'm reopening the issue in the hope that we can add an EASE test case. Maybe something like the following: EASEv2 M09, Icarus-NLv4 bcs --> EASEv2 M36, Icarus-NLv5 bcs The source restart and bcs dirs are on the SMAP project disk:

/discover/nobackup/projects/gmao/smap/SMAP_L4/L4_SM/bcs/CLSM_params/Icarus-NLv4_EASE/SMAP_EASEv2_M09/
/discover/nobackup/projects/gmao/smap/SMAP_L4/L4_SM/bcs/CLSM_params/Icarus-NLv5_EASE/SMAP_EASEv2_M36/
/discover/nobackup/projects/gmao/smap/SMAP_L4/L4_SM/Vv6032/rs/ens0000/Y2015/M03/SPL4SM_Vv6032.catch_internal_rst.20150331_0000
/discover/nobackup/projects/gmao/smap/SMAP_L4/L4_SM/Vv6032/rs/ens0000/SPL4SM_Vv6032.vegdyn_internal_rst

The bcs are likely going to be there for a few more years. I suggest putting the restarts into a dir controlled by the SI Team. (We will likely remove Vv6032 restarts from the dir once we get to Version 8 of L4_SM sometime in 2023.)