ctsm5.2.0 -- ctsm5.2.mksurfdata

[slevis-lmwg]

Description of changes

This pull request will document final steps in the ctsm5.2 branch development before we make the ctsm5.2.0 tag.

Specific notes

Contributors other than yourself, if any:
@mvertens @ekluzek @jedwards4b @billsacks @wwieder @lawrencepj1 @negin513 @dlawrenncar @olyson @keerzhang1 @fang-bowen @Face2sea @adamrher @samsrabin

CTSM Issues Fixed (include github issue #):
Fixes #1903
Fixes #1716
Fixes #1556
Fixes #1878
Fixes #2131
Fixes #2218
Fixes #1483
Fixes #2228
Fixes #90
Fixes #80
Fixes #1878

Pull Requests that comprise this effort:
https://github.com/ESCOMP/CTSM/pulls?q=is%3Apr+base%3Actsm5.2.mksurfdata+is%3Aclosed
#2464
#2447
#2427
#2424
#2417
#2327
#2318
#2164
#2048
#2016
#2008
#1946
#1920
#1890
#1873
#1866
#1853
#1796
#1756
#1748
#1746
#1732
#1728
#1721
#1663
#1586

Are answers expected to change (and if so in what way)?
Yes, more than roundoff for at least the following reasons:

• Would have expected roundoff if we had just updated mksurfdata_map with mksurfdata_esmf
• More than roundoff because we have replaced several raw datasets to include more modern data

Any User Interface Changes (namelist or namelist defaults changes)?

• mksurfdata_esmf has a less cumbersome workflow than mksurfdata_map
• namelist_defaults point to new fsurdat, landuse, and finidat files

Testing performed, if any:

• build-namelist_test.pl (derecho)
• Python unit and sys tests (derecho)
• aux_clm (izumi, derecho)
• ctsm_sci (derecho)
  most recently for tag alpha-ctsm5.2.mksrf.20_ctsm5.1.dev163 as documented in Workaround for transient Smallville tests #1673 + testing all new datasets #2318 for example here.

[slevis-lmwg]

I submitted these izumi tests to help get around the glitches that Erik saw on izumi.
I may have misnamed the new baselines.
I added _slevis suffixes to them rather than deleting Erik's:

./run_sys_tests -s fates -c alpha-ctsm5.2.mksrf.27_ctsm5.1.dev176 -g fates-sci.1.72.2_api.34.0.0-alpha-ctsm5.2.mksrf.27_ctsm5.1.dev176_slevis
./run_sys_tests -s mosart -c alpha-ctsm5.2.mksrf.27_ctsm5.1.dev176 -g mosart1_0_49-alpha-ctsm5.2.mksrf.27_ctsm5.1.dev176_slevis

I compared to alpha-ctsm5.2.mksrf.27_ctsm5.1.dev176 ("null" test) for now. We can run against other baselines later if we have specific questions or concerns.

[slevis-lmwg]

Failure not labeled EXPECTED:
ERS_D_Ld5.1x1_brazil.I2000Clm50FatesCruRsGs.izumi_nag.clm-FatesColdHydro
but a similar test in the baseline also fails and is labeled EXPECTED:
SMS_Lm3_D_Mmpi-serial.1x1_brazil.I2000Clm50FatesCruRsGs.izumi_intel.clm-FatesColdHydro
and is documented here:
#2373
NGEET/fates#1163
#2355 (comment)

[ekluzek]

I see what's up with ERS_D_Ld5.1x1_brazil.I2000Clm50FatesCruRsGs.izumi_nag.clm-FatesColdHydro. It is in the expected fail list, but as a COMPARE_base_rest fail. But, #2373 has it fail at runtime. So I'll update the entry to mention #2373.

Thanks for pointing that out @slevis-lmwg

[wwieder]

Thanks for all your work on this Erik, Sam, and many more!