-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 24
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Feature 2709 mvmode multithreshradii #3034
base: develop
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
…radii in multivariate mode
On Dec 11, 2024, I compiled the feature branch for this PR on seneca for @hertneky and @JohnHalleyGotway to test. @hertneky please test the executables in this directory: I did this using the following commands:
|
@JohnHalleyGotway Got it, thanks. I will do some testing tomorrow. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The documentation looks good to me - just one small typo.
Testing done:
Quilting=False
equal inputs for conv radii/thresh - passed, produced expected results
unequal inputs for conv radii/thresh - passed, produced informative error when unequal inputs present, which isn't allowed.
Quilting=True
Equal inputs for radii and equal inputs for thresh - Passed, produced expected results
Unequal number of radii - Passed, produced informative error
Unequal number of thresh - Passed, produced informative error
Unequal number of thresh and merge_thresh - Passed, produced informative error
Let me know of any other tests that might be useful, but it looks good so far!
Note that the SonarQube code smells are reduced from 18,277 in develop to 18,072 in this feature branch. |
Expected Differences
quilting and non-quilting options are now supported.
Without quilting all inputs (forecast and obs) need to have the same number N of convolution radii and thresholds, with one mvmode run for the first set, one for the second set, etc. for a total of N runs.
With quilting all inputs must have the same number of convolution radii N, and all inputs must have the same number of convolution thresholds M, but N and M can differ. N*M mvmode runs are performed.
Do these changes introduce new tools, command line arguments, or configuration file options? [No]
Do these changes modify the structure of existing or add new output data types (e.g. statistic line types or NetCDF variables)? [No]
Pull Request Testing
Describe testing already performed for these changes:
I ran several tests on seneca on the same case I've used for other MvMode changes. Tested with and without quilting. The tests can be found here: /d1/personal/dave/mvmode_november_test. The scripts that I ran are: run-multi.bsh run-quilt.bsh check-multi.bsh.
Comments in these files show what I was testing. I did kind of make up some of the convolution settings (not scientific).
Recommend testing for the reviewer(s) to perform, including the location of input datasets, and any additional instructions:
I'd recommend starting with these tests to see if you like the logging and output file names and content. Everything is local to /d1/personal/dave/mvmode_november_test.
Do these changes include sufficient documentation updates, ensuring that no errors or warnings exist in the build of the documentation? [Yes] I hope no errors or warning happen, my changes were pretty minor to the user document.
Do these changes include sufficient testing updates? [Maybe] @hertneky you are wecome to create a better more meaningful scientific test or two.
Will this PR result in changes to the MET test suite? [Maybe]
I'm wondering if the version which gets written to the output files will cause the test suite to fail, because the version has changed to v12.1. We'll find out.
Also, should we add a test that has mvmode with multiple conv. thresh/radii to the unit tests?
Will this PR result in changes to existing METplus Use Cases? [Maybe?]
If yes, create a new Update Truth METplus issue to describe them.
Will this version change to v12.1 which is written to output files cause problems with existing METplus Use Cases?
Do these changes introduce new SonarQube findings? [?]
How do I test for that?
Please complete this pull request review by [Dec 31].
Pull Request Checklist
See the METplus Workflow for details.
Select: Reviewer(s) and Development issue
Select: Milestone as the version that will include these changes
Select: Coordinated METplus-X.Y Support project for bugfix releases or MET-X.Y.Z Development project for official releases