Feature #2362 message_type_group_map take 2 #2367
Merged
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Further testing revealed that Ensemble-Stat still required that the SURFACE message_type_group_map be defined. Note that the SURFACE setting is used by Ensemble-Stat and Point-Stat to define the message type(s) for which surface verification logic is applied. Rather than erroring out, update Point-Stat and Ensemble-Stat to use default values instead if SURFACE is not specified in the config file. For consistency in logic, handle LANDSF and WATERSF the same way. However, if land_mask is specified, still require that the user actually set them in the config file.
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:
Ran
make test
withmessage_type_group_map = [ ];
and confirmed that Point-Stat and Ensemble-Stat run without error.Recommend testing for the reviewer(s) to perform, including the location of input datasets, and any additional instructions:
Inspect code changes.
Do these changes include sufficient documentation updates, ensuring that no errors or warnings exist in the build of the documentation? [Yes]
Do these changes include sufficient testing updates? [Yes]
I didn't add any new 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 [Mon 12/5/22].
Pull Request Checklist
See the METplus Workflow for details.
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