Skip to content
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

Lightning observation processing tasks are needed for RRFS #487

Closed
christinaholtNOAA opened this issue Nov 16, 2022 · 7 comments
Closed
Assignees
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@christinaholtNOAA
Copy link
Collaborator

Description

RRFS runs an observation pre-processing step on Vaisala lightening data in netcdf format. Specifically, the process_lightening task runs the process_Lightning.exe from rrfs-utl on files named like ${YYJJJHH}${n}0005r on Jet.

Please reference the exregional_process_lightning.sh script in RRFS_dev1 for specifics.

Solution

Use the RRFS_dev1 version of this task as a guide to a solution. Include any necessary default configuration settings, add j-jobs, and ex-scripts, and hook them into the workflow.

This task has no dependencies other than data retrieval, so should be able to stand alone as a full workflow without other components.

Requirements**

  • All contributions must be machine independent and follow the style and guidelines of the SRW App.
  • The contributed scripts must be tested, and new tests should be contributed for SRW. These WE2E tests can be short and only include data retrieval and running the task.

Acceptance Criteria (Definition of Done)

Matches answers obtained in RRFS. Please reach out to someone at NOAA GSL to help with this test case.

@christinaholtNOAA christinaholtNOAA added the enhancement New feature or request label Nov 16, 2022
@EdwardSnyder-NOAA EdwardSnyder-NOAA self-assigned this Jan 10, 2023
@christinaholtNOAA christinaholtNOAA moved this from Todo to In Progress in RRFS Merge to SRW Jan 11, 2023
@EdwardSnyder-NOAA
Copy link
Collaborator

Daniel's PR-540 encompasses a lot of work the lightning obs processing task would need. So, I merged my changes for this task into his PR. The lightning task does work but per the acceptance criteria, I would need to match the results from a RRFS test case. @christinaholtNOAA, would you be able to help me get a case so I can test the lightning obs data against?

@christinaholtNOAA
Copy link
Collaborator Author

These changes work in Daniel's PR, but plans are to pull these changes out into a separate small PR.

Need to be able to test one cycle, and having trouble. Will open PR to discuss that problem.

@MatthewPyle-NOAA
Copy link
Collaborator

MatthewPyle-NOAA commented Feb 13, 2023

Eddie reported an issue with a missing item (fv3_grid_spec) in his testing. Believe this is actually a fixed file - need to sort out why it is reaching the working directory in RRFS_dev1 but not for this test case.

@christinaholtNOAA christinaholtNOAA moved this from In Progress to In Review in RRFS Merge to SRW Mar 13, 2023
@christinaholtNOAA
Copy link
Collaborator Author

christinaholtNOAA commented Mar 13, 2023

Iterating through PR questions/comments.

Needs dataset for running .
Tested with a wrapper. Still need to add changes for default config settings.
Request to add a new PR for the rrfs_utl fix .

@christinaholtNOAA
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Preparing changes for re-review. Eddy plans to stage some test cases under the test data area, and use the July 2022 path.

fv3_grid_spec files are technically pre-generated files that come out of the forecast step. Soft-linked C403 mosaic halo file...

There are 2 different grid spec files. There's one that's in the input, but also one that comes out of the forecast. Let's ask Ming Hu about the differences.

Don't worry about support for io_layouts other than 1 for now.

@EdwardSnyder-NOAA
Copy link
Collaborator

Ming suggested to use the fv3_grid_spec under expt_name/expt_date instead of the one found under the INPUT directory.

The changes have been addressed and the PR is ready for review.

@christinaholtNOAA
Copy link
Collaborator Author

No changes to the workflow, so it shouldn't be an issue with XML/YAML. Can go after the variables PR.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants