Fix validation of campaign configs

[xylar]

This merge switches to first merging user and campaign config files and only validating after the merge. This slightly complicates the logic for getting the campaign (if any) because defaults have not yet been parsed at that point. But it does mean we only validate once (so only one validation success is printed) and it means that defaults will not override the campaign config options, as was happening before this merge.

[xylar]

Without this fix, I'm seeing an error when I use the campaign = "water_cycle" config option:

$ zppy -c test.cfg 
Configuration file validation passed
Validation results={'e3sm_diags': True, 'e3sm_diags_vs_model': True, 'mpas_analysis': True, 'default': {'input': False, 'input_subdir': True, 'output': False, 'case': False, 'www': False, 'debug': True, 'partition': True, 'e3sm_unified': True, 'dry_run': True, 'campaign': True}, 'climo': True, 'ts': True, 'amwg': True, 'global_time_series': True}
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/home/ac.xylar/chrysalis/miniconda3/envs/zppy_dev/bin/zppy", line 33, in <module>
    sys.exit(load_entry_point('zppy', 'console_scripts', 'zppy')())
  File "/gpfs/fs1/home/ac.xylar/e3sm_work/zppy/add_cryo_config/zppy/__main__.py", line 43, in main
    _validate_config(config)
  File "/gpfs/fs1/home/ac.xylar/e3sm_work/zppy/add_cryo_config/zppy/__main__.py", line 119, in _validate_config
    raise Exception("Configuration file validation failed")
Exception: Configuration file validation failed

[xylar]

I'm not sure how this was missed in my testing of #138.

[xylar]

I'm testing this as part of my work on adding the cryosphere campaign. @forsyth2, it would be great if you could test as well.

[forsyth2]

I'm not sure how this was missed in my testing of #138.

That is strange. I wonder how we both missed that. I'm able to reproduce the error now.

@forsyth2, it would be great if you could test as well.

Using this change, configuration validation passes (although this statement prints twice, as I suppose would be expected) and the jobs are launched. Thanks for making this change!

[xylar]

(although this statement prints twice, as I suppose would be expected)

Yes. If that bothers you, we probably don't need to print out anything if things work as expected. Most users won't care about the details if there isn't a problem.

[xylar]

@forsyth2, let me know if you want me to include that change.

[forsyth2]

@forsyth2, let me know if you want me to include that change.

@xylar Yeah, if you don't mind, that would be great. Thanks! I personally like seeing the "validation passed" statement, but yes, probably most users won't care as long as it works.

[xylar]

@forsyth2, I'm running into more issues as I test the cryosphere configuration. The testing with the water cycle configuration was a little too simple because all the options in water_cycle.cfg are the same as in default.ini. As soon as that's not the case, I'm discovering conflicts where defaults are overriding campaign options rather than the other way around.

So I'm putting this PR in draft mode and will push some other fixes, hopefully soon.

[xylar]

@forsyth2, I think this working correctly now and ready to review, based on my testing as part of #144

[forsyth2]

Thanks @xylar. I tested on the following four cases and everything seems to work.

• campaign = "water_cycle"
• campaign = "none"
• Campaign unspecified
• campaign = "water_cycle" overriding sets as sets = 'qbo',

[xylar]

@forsyth2, thanks very much for testing. I think you can merge this whenever you're ready.

[forsyth2]

@xylar I'm working on some automated tests for this. Is it ok for me to push them to your branch before merging?

[forsyth2]

The commit I would add to this branch is here: forsyth2@245b735

[xylar]

@forsyth2, that looks good to me.