-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 88
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 directory structure of NCO mode #743
Merged
Merged
Changes from 5 commits
Commits
Show all changes
6 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
d5c84c8
update vertical structure of NCO mode
chan-hoo a2671cf
Add missing update
chan-hoo f6c4980
update sample script for nco
chan-hoo 6b8c677
fix typo
chan-hoo 8809a71
Fix typo on write component of new RRFS CONUS
chan-hoo 15729f8
update comment for model_ver
chan-hoo File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
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.
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.
@chan-hoo Will you provide some guidance on how this versioning is determined?
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.
@christinaholtNOAA, there is no specific guideline about this in the nco standards. @JacobCarley-NOAA, @BenjaminBlake-NOAA , do you have an answer to this?
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.
@christinaholtNOAA I believe it's related to the number of operational implementations that have occurred. Since RRFS is not operational yet, model_ver = "v1.0". For the HRRR, we are on version 4, and with each successive WCOSS1 update we went from hrrr.v4.0.0 to hrrr.v4.0.14. But on WCOSS2, NCO is using hrrr.v4.1, so model_ver = "v4.1". I'm not sure why they are now using 2 digits when they had been using 3 digits for the version numbers though.
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.
@BenjaminBlake-NOAA, Thank you for the explanation. You're correct. The exact wording in the nco standard is "version number of package in three digits". I'll update the comment and default value to "v.1.0.0".
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.
@chan-hoo @BenjaminBlake-NOAA Thanks for the replies. That honestly doesn't clear things up too much for me. I'm understand that a frozen version in operations is going to correspond to a given number, but that number is only really applicable to the develop branch for a brief moment in time (if that is even true). Do we have v1.0 until this goes into ops, then we bump it to be working on v2.0 since it would be newer than what is running in operations?
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.
@christinaholtNOAA From my point of view I think the idea of using v1.0 until it goes into operations makes sense, and then we would increase the version to v2.0 after that. But maybe that doesn't make as much sense for ongoing development. Would it make more sense to increase the version number incrementally with time? For example, v1.0 becomes v1.1, then v1.2, etc. until RRFS is implemented and then we move up to v2.0.
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.
@BenjaminBlake-NOAA Would NCO accept that we were putting v1.17 (for example) in operations as the first implementation?
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.
@christinaholtNOAA I don't think they would accept that, so the final code we deliver to NCO will need to use v1.0, but I don't see an issue with using different version numbers during the development process.