-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 250
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
[production/RRFS.v1] physics updates for RRFS.v1 code freeze #2147
[production/RRFS.v1] physics updates for RRFS.v1 code freeze #2147
Conversation
@haiqinli If you ran RTs, could you commit the test_changes.list file? |
@haiqinli I am setting a new RRFS.v1 baseline location across RDHPCS first. @MatthewPyle-NOAA RRFS team may need to catch up to set wcoss2 RRFS.v1 baseline line location. |
@grantfirl Do you mean the file of fail_test? I committed the logs/RegressionTests_hera.log, which includes the changed test run cases. Thanks. |
You can disregard that. I forgot that the test_changes.list file was just added at the top of develop and the release branch doesn't include this yet. |
@jkbk2004 Not sure I completely understand. What does the RRFS team need to do? Make a change to point our regression tests at this new RRFS.v1 baseline? |
@MatthewPyle-NOAA https://github.com/haiqinli/ufs-weather-model/blob/production/RRFS.v1-codefreeze/tests/rt.sh#L279 and https://github.com/haiqinli/ufs-weather-model/blob/production/RRFS.v1-codefreeze/tests/rt.sh#L299 are for develop branch baseline. On RDHPCS side, I created another directory for RRFS.v1: e.g. hera /scratch2/NAGAPE/epic/UFS-WM_RT/RRFS.v1. So we can continue to test once PRs come to production/RRFS.v1 branch. On acorn and wcoss2, RRFS team may need to do same thing to start maintaining RRFS.v1 baseline in separate folders and running regression test when needed. If NCO/code-freeze requires some level of code cleanup, we can follow separately: e.g. https://github.com/ufs-community/ufs-weather-model/tree/production/AQM.v7. But I notice production/hafs.v1 goes w/o much cleanup. |
gaea c5 and Rocky8 OS migration were kicked in after the production branch hash. ecflow update on derecho after the hash as well. so we may need to skip gaea/jet/derecho. |
orion and hercules are on maintenance. @MatthewPyle-NOAA @haiqinli is it ok to merge this pr by tomorrow? |
@BrianCurtis-NOAA It sounds like it will be better RRFS team maintains new RRFS.v1 baselines on acorn and wcoss2. But FYI: in case to check on your side. |
@grantfirl On RDHPCS side, new RRFS.v1 baseline locations were created ok. You may go ahead to test from #2158 |
@jkbk2004 I don't know what you mean? |
@jkbk2004 I'm creating baselines on WCOSS for an RRFS subset of regression tests (using the PR 2147 code). Can get them on acorn once that platform returns. I don't have emc.nems access, so will put them under /lfs/h2/emc/lam/noscrub/emc.lam/RRFS.v1_RT. |
Updates list of tests to run for RRFSv1 Adds wcoss2 regression test log
@jkbk2004 I think this one might be ready to go now. Let me know if more is needed on the WCOSS side - thanks! |
I agree. We can start merging process. I will go to ufs-community/ccpp-physics#176. |
@MatthewPyle-NOAA This pr is ready to merge. When you squash/merge this pr, you may update commit messages for book-keeping information as
|
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.
Thanks for all of the help @jkbk2004 and others...will merge now.
@jkbk2004 @MatthewPyle-NOAA Could you remind me what the status of the RRFS baselines are? For example, what is in /scratch2/NAGAPE/epic/UFS-WM_RT/RRFS.v1/NEMSfv3gfs/develop-20240227? Are the baselines in that directory valid for this PR? What is the purpose of the new rt.conf_rrfs? Are we only supposed to be running those tests? Sorry for the questions. I'm just running into unexpected RT failures comparing against /scratch2/NAGAPE/epic/UFS-WM_RT/RRFS.v1/NEMSfv3gfs/develop-20240227 that I'm trying to understand. I previously had no RT failures with the same PR going into the develop branch, so I'm confused. |
@grantfirl For this PR and RDHPCS side, I recreated full rt.conf baselines. I agree we should use only rt.conf_rrfs for this production branch. I need to clean up /scratch2/NAGAPE/epic/UFS-WM_RT/RRFS.v1/NEMSfv3gfs/develop-20240227. Maybe clean up thru test along with #2158. Do you see any hiccups of develop-20240227 to test rt.conf_rrfs ? |
@grantfirl The new rt.conf_rrfs is intended to be a subset of tests more relevant to RRFS. Those were the tests I ran on WCOSS. I'm not sure if everyone wants to use it to limit the number of regression tests run elsewhere. Those develop-20240227 should be valid for this PR, but will defer to @jkbk2004 |
Commit Queue Requirements:
Description:
This PR includes the following updates:
1). MYNN updates;
2). RUC LSM updates (ufs-community/ccpp-physics#163);
3). GF updates for humidity DA; restore scale-awareness in the 1st hour; suppress weak radar reflectivity over water;
4). smoke plume rise updates for stability on WCOSS2.
Commit Message:
Priority:
Git Tracking
UFSWM:
Sub component Pull Requests:
UFSWM Blocking Dependencies:
Changes
Regression Test Changes (Please commit test_changes.list):
RegressionTests_hera.log
Input data Changes:
Library Changes/Upgrades:
Testing Log: