Feature 1918 climo_ens_member_id

[JohnHalleyGotway]

Expected Differences

• Do these changes introduce new tools, command line arguments, or configuration file options? [No]
  
  If yes, please describe:
  

• Do these changes modify the structure of existing or add new output data types (e.g. statistic line types or NetCDF variables)? [No]
  
  If yes, please describe:
  

Pull Request Testing

• Describe testing already performed for these changes:
  
  Adapted a test from unit_gen_ens_prod.xml to test these changes:

gen_ens_prod \
-ens ${MET_TEST_INPUT}/model_data/CPC_NMME/CFSv2.tmp2m.198201.fcst.nc \
-config GenEnsProdConfig_single_file_nc_normalize_climo.txt \
-out gen_ens_prod_SINGLE_FILE_NC_NO_CTRL_NORMALIZE_CLIMO.nc  \
-v 10

With this config file:
GenEnsProdConfig_single_file_nc_normalize_climo.txt

The resulting output file contains a mean field of all 0's. Just setting climo_mean = ens copies over the same field settings to the climo_mean dictionary. Running with normalize = CLIMO_ANOM subtracts ens field - climo_mean field. The fact that the result is all 0's demonstrates that MET_ENS_MEMBER_ID setting is properly being substituted for each ensemble member read.

Note that I did also consider whether this should be added to Ensemble-Stat. But I decided that no, it should not. This logic only applies when normalizing input gridded data relative to climatology data. And that feature is not yet supported in Ensemble-Stat.

• Recommend testing for the reviewer(s) to perform, including the location of input datasets, and any additional instructions:
  

Please test more on seneca using:
/d1/projects/MET/MET_pull_requests/met-10.1.0/met-10.1.0-beta6/feature_1918/MET-feature_1918_climo_ens_member_id_into_develop/met/bin/gen_ens_prod

Do more thorough testing with your actual use case data. Note that MET_ENS_MEMBER_ID should be able to be used in climo_mean.file_name as well, although I haven't explicitly tested that.

• Do these changes include sufficient documentation updates, ensuring that no errors or warnings exist in the build of the documentation? [No]
  I made no updates to the documentation. Can you please take a look and update the docs as you see fit.

• Do these changes include sufficient testing updates? [No]
  I made no testing updates. Although once you get your METplus use case up and running, I'd recommend adding some small piece of it to the MET unit tests.

• Will this PR result in changes to the test suite? [No]
  
  If yes, describe the new output and/or changes to the existing output:
  

• Please complete this pull request review by [Monday 2/28/22].
  

Pull Request Checklist

See the METplus Workflow for details.

• Review the source issue metadata (required labels, projects, and milestone).
• Complete the PR definition above.
• Ensure the PR title matches the feature or bugfix branch name.
• Define the PR metadata, as permissions allow.
  Select: Reviewer(s)
  Select: Organization level software support Project or Repository level development cycle Project
  Select: Milestone as the version that will include these changes
• After submitting the PR, select Linked issues with the original issue number.
• After the PR is approved, merge your changes. If permissions do not allow this, request that the reviewer do the merge.
• Close the linked issue and delete your feature or bugfix branch from GitHub.

[j-opatz]

This update now fully entails and duplicates CPC's ability to create standardized anomalies within the MET framework. Results were compared to the previous Python and MET method, and no differences were found. Documentation also now stipulates when the naming substitution can be used, in an attempt to head off any questions pertaining to it.

[JohnHalleyGotway]

@j-opatz, FYI, I just pushed an addition to unit_gen_ens_prod.xml using the data you provided to demonstrate the use of the functionality for the CFSv2 CPC data.

It's running through this GHA test. Note that I did also update the model name from WRF to CFSv2 for an existing gen_ens_prod test since it's using CFSv2 input data. But that will also be flagged as a difference.

I'll wait for this test to complete and confirm the expected set of changes before merging.