Performance Testing: Verifying MPs being used cover all configs

[esaber76]

This ticket is a follow-on to #6371 and is to identify the next 15 monitoring plan candidates to use for performance testing. Ensure that the revert to official, export, import, and evaluation process generates clean evaluation results in the perf environment.

Example 1: All CEMS including MATS Hg CEMS (CS configuration) - Example 2: All CEMS including MATS Sorbent Trap (CS configuration) - Example 3: Appendix D with NOXR CEMS (CP configuration) - Example 4: Appendix D with NOXR Appendix E (CP configuration) - Example 5: LME with LTFF ( CP configuration) - Example 6: All CEMS including MATS Hg CEMS (MS configuration) -
Example 7: All CEMS including MATS Sorbent Trap (MS configuration) Example 8: Complex configuration - Example 9: MP (multiple pipes) configuration - Example 10: NSPS4T configuration - Example 11: Location with ADCALC methods - Example 12: Location with LTFCALC methods - Example 13: Ozone season only configuration - Example 14: MATS only configuration - Example 15: Configuration with HCL methods -

Also identify targeted QA tests for these locations, document location/test number and sequence of events that needs to happen to open QA test window as a perf test user, import from historical, evaluate, submit, etc.

Upload spreadsheet to: Upload spreadsheet to: Testing Documentation folder.

[annalbrecht]

Repurposing this ticket to verify that the configs being used cover all the various permutations.

[annalbrecht]

Moved to sprint 14 due to higher priority items, .e.g., GNP testing and config management testing.