search

NCAR / ccpp-doc

Technical Documentation for the Common Community Physics Package (CCPP)
0 stars 33 forks source link

Suite name guidelines #72

Open mkavulich opened 5 months ago

mkavulich commented 5 months ago

Per discussions that have occurred over the past weeks/months, suite name guidelines are being added to the Tech Doc. See this presentation for more details.

The built documentation can be found here: https://mike-k-tech-doc.readthedocs.io/en/latest/ConstructingSuite.html#suite-definition-file

climbfuji commented 5 months ago

Will these new suite names work out of the box with prebuild and capgen? I actually don't remember.

mkavulich commented 5 months ago

@climbfuji to answer your first question, there doesn't appear to be anything in capgen that enforces certain naming conventions (aside from an xml suffix), unlike prebuild which contains SUITE_DEFINITION_FILENAME_PATTERN regex (which will be updated to remove the "suite" prefix requirement). In fact, it looks like the current capgen test suites already conform to this new standard (suitename.xml rather than suite_suitename.xml)

Regarding the separation of concerns (host vs. CCPP), admittedly, suite files fall in a weird in-between state of governance between the host and CCPP, as the suite files reside in a host's repository, but the format and, for the most part, contents (and even some aspects of file names) are dictated by the CCPP framework and physics. I will not assert that this initial draft is perfect, and I've updated the wording based on your initial concerns, especially to try to dampen any "UFS-centrism" bias. Let me know what you think, or if you have any specific suggestions.

Sorry you were caught off-guard by this, I did my best to cast a wide net when workshopping this proposal; outside of the extensive DTC discussions we've discussed this at several CCPP code management meetings, and I gave a brief presentation at the UFS App coordination meeting three weeks ago. I probably should have added it as a line item to a framework meeting, but I thought if discussion was needed it could happen once a framework PR was open (I will open an issue today).

mkavulich commented 5 months ago

Also, I will open an issue in the UFS weather model repository for this upcoming change, along with a draft PR. We should discuss ways to mitigate any issues related to regression tests or other modifications that may be more difficult with "non-descriptive" suite names.

mkavulich commented 5 months ago

Yes, I mainly opened this PR to have somewhere to point for documentation when opening other issues and PRs. This should not be merged until all discussion is concluded and things are (at least close to) approved. I'll convert this to a draft to emphasize that it is not ready for merge.