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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
Update SRW Documentation #212
Update SRW Documentation #212
Changes from 73 commits
370bb6c
a907487
b628dd6
467071f
de00e4c
fb34100
701f9e9
cab1c6f
290364e
80291a1
ab97b74
8056200
17504fc
357e151
acf555b
36349a6
838271f
863b7de
2b100d9
9e58e67
1830b49
54a647e
46d381f
91af03d
97616fd
21d3e27
5af69e5
ee901e6
f77cba9
bc0748c
fef6d27
0d16101
418a40b
77d565d
2e1a03f
80519d4
6f11030
999a417
f07fe8a
14db051
b58d661
301ff5f
0b50e04
8786b32
3a442d6
0cae160
27247a5
805bb81
29cf292
3e30098
53807fa
93bfe9b
eb00397
f4d2043
d1addf8
fc1a1d4
acb77c8
70a051b
99127e7
b01268d
da35184
1302868
a704a2f
7fc263d
496fcb3
10de71f
16b0c1a
e294020
92bddca
698613b
6fa5074
a5ae76e
ea17b19
1aa9322
3d1cddb
173b838
09581c8
a714d43
4757b40
2c68823
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
This file was deleted.
Large diffs are not rendered by default.
This file was deleted.
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.
Same comment for all these components applies - will these versions be updated for this release of the SRW App? I would think there would be quite a few changes possibly needed for the UFS WM as it has changed a lot in a year so it likely should be updated to v3.0.0.
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.
I'm still seeing only a v2.0.0 tag on the WM repo and in their docs. I've changed the docs to represent "latest" in most cases but can change them at a later date to a specific version for the SRW App release.
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.
I think it would be good to make sure someone is working on the updated documentation for the WM UG. It will need to be tagged for the new release.
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.
I think it would be good to check and make sure that the WM UG is being updated and there is a plan to tag something for the v3 release. I am not sure who is coordinating that.
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.
Is the intention to provide full support for the user defined domains now? If so, this text should be modified. It was preliminary for v1.0 release but I think it is probably able to be fully supported now (but leave that up to EPIC to decide for sure).
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.
There are 4 supported physics options supported for this release. See this doc: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1m8RYA485SyMe0BSLya0rUJZKABOQMXJf7PVzufgulIQ/edit?pli=1#gid=0 to get the details needed to update this paragraph.
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.
This document has the physics suites listed, and I could potentially copy the table into the docs so people have more info, but I'm wondering why someone would choose one of these versus another. Is there any documentation that describes the purpose/benefits/uses of each physics suite? For example, I think some are better for high-resolution forecasts and others for low-resolution, if I recall correctly. It's unclear to me where in the CCPP docs I'd find that kind of info (if anywhere), since I can only see GFS v16beta and RRFS v1alpha. I remember they were talking about updating the docs at one of the meetings... Should I ask Ligia?
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.
There are different physics suites being tested/tuned by different organizations. It is possible that some of these would be used for a multi-physics suite ensemble in the future too. I don't know if there is documentation on what suite to chose when. You can ask Ligia but I am guessing that will be hard to come by.
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.
@fossell Can you provide the updated UPP User's Guide link (or plan for what it will be)?
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.
@jwolff-ncar For now I have just updated it to "latest," but we can change it later.
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.
Sounds good. However, it will be important to get tags of the documentation that go with this release otherwise if something changes in develop (latest) and it doesn't match the release that will cause problems for users in the future.
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.
Oh, this also just occurred to me - we will need to mention the ensemble capability in the UG as well. I think @JeffBeck-NOAA was going to work on that at some point! (Again, like the vx, that can be added later in a separate PR)
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.
@jwolff-ncar, yep, we'll need ensemble and stochastic physics included in the documentation. I added some fairly detailed in-line comments within the original PRs, and those will be a good place to start.
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.
@JeffBeck-NOAA Can you link to the PR's and/or list the numbers I should look at?
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.
Yes! PR #237 and PR #685 for the tendency-based and SPP stochastic physics, respectively. More SPP information is available in the ufs-weather-model-related issue here. Ensemble mode was implemented in PR #245, with a bug fix here and here.