Fix for land component model

[uturuncoglu]

Commit Queue Requirements:

• Fill out all sections of this template.
• All sub component pull requests have been reviewed by their code managers.
• Run the full Intel+GNU RT suite (compared to current baselines) on either Hera/Derecho/Hercules
• Commit 'test_changes.list' from previous step

---

Description:

This PR aims to fix couple of issues with the component land model. The fully coupled atm+lnd configuration (control_p8_atmlnd) was failing in debug mode. To fix the issue, the NOAHMP NUOPC cap is modified to read required fixed information from the sfc_data file. The control_p8_atmlnd and control_p8_atmlnd_sbs tests are started to use V2 surface files which seems consistent. control_p8_atmlnd_debug test is also included to the test list.

Commit Message:

* UFSWM - fix fully coupled land component configuration
  * NOAHMP - get fixed information from surface file

Priority:

• Critical Bugfix: control_p8_atmlnd configuration was not running correctly
• High: The masking was wrong in CMEPS and lnd->atm direction of coupling was also not working properly for control_p8_atmlnd. The input files was also not consistent and as a result baseline was also wrong.

Git Tracking

UFSWM:

• Closes Land component model configurations that has active atmosphere component are not working in debug mode #2189

Sub component Pull Requests:

• NOAHMP: Fix debug mode issue NOAA-EMC/noahmp#9

UFSWM Blocking Dependencies:

• Blocked by Enable cpl_scalars export from ATM and NoahMP for use by CMEPS #2175 (This PR fixes mask for lnd->atm direction)

---

Changes

Regression Test Changes (Please commit test_changes.list):

• PR Adds New Tests/Baselines. control_p8_atmlnd_debug
• PR Updates/Changes Baselines. control_p8_atmlnd, control_p8_atmlnd_sbs and control_restart_p8_atmlnd

Input data Changes:

• None.

Library Changes/Upgrades:

• No Updates

---

Testing Log:

• RDHPCS
  • Hera
  • Orion
  • Hercules
  • Jet
  • Gaea
  • Derecho
• WCOSS2
  • Dogwood/Cactus
  • Acorn
• CI
• opnReqTest (complete task if unnecessary)

[uturuncoglu]

@jkbk2004 @DeniseWorthen I am making this ready for review and depend on #2175. This will fix additional issues revealed by testing #2175.

[uturuncoglu]

@jkbk2004 @DeniseWorthen BTW, I am not sure it is already available or not but it would be nice to have capability in RT testing framework to allow using exiting tests to create new ones by changing couple of options in it. So, it would be something like an overloading. For example, this PR introduces another test for debug and the only change in the test file is the baseline directory since it is complied with debug mode. The rest of the options are same. So, it would be nice to use a set of base tests and use them to create new ones. I think this could simply the the tests files and also their consistencies.

[jkbk2004]

@jkbk2004 @DeniseWorthen BTW, I am not sure it is already available or not but it would be nice to have capability in RT testing framework to allow using exiting tests to create new ones by changing couple of options in it. So, it would be something like an overloading. For example, this PR introduces another test for debug and the only change in the test file is the baseline directory since it is complied with debug mode. The rest of the options are same. So, it would be nice to use a set of base tests and use them to create new ones. I think this could simply the the tests files and also their consistencies.

@uturuncoglu Right now, debug test is handled as separate test case with debug build option on it. This pr is exactly doing that. However, I fully got your point. On EPIC side, we consider to revamp the test system to introduce rt.yaml (#2182). Goal is to allow more flexibility and even to meet the different requirements of projects across centers and labs. Hope to make progress soon with the yaml approach (in a month time scale): https://github.com/jkbk2004/ufs-weather-model/blob/feature/rt-refactor/tests/rt.yaml. Once a sharable feature e branch is available, I will keep you posted there.

[DusanJovic-NOAA]

@uturuncoglu If I understand correctly what you are asking, you can already do that relatively easily. In the derived test configuration file simply source the base test configuration file and then overwrite variables you need to have different values.
Suppose you have a base test named 'base_test' which has the test configuration file in tests/base_test and it probably has the content something like:

$ cat tests/base_test

export TEST_DESCR="Base test to test specific configuration"
export CNTL_DIR=base_test
export LIST_FILES="sfcf000.nc \
                   sfcf021.nc \
                   sfcf024.nc \
                   atmf000.nc \
                   atmf021.nc \
                   atmf024.nc"
export_fv3
export VAR1=.true.
export VAR2=365
export VAR3='enable_feature'

Now, let's say you want to run a debug version of this test. Create file tests/base_test_debug, for example like:

$ cat tests/base_test_debug

# "Inherit" all settings from 'base_test'
source tests/base_test

# Overwrite some configuration variables
export TEST_DESCR="Base test to test specific configuration - DEBUG version"
export CNTL_DIR=base_test_debug
export LIST_FILES="sfcf000.nc \
                   sfcf001.nc \
                   atmf000.nc \
                   atmf001.nc"
export VAR1=.false.

You can keep 'deriving' more tests from base_test_debug, by sourcing it in a third file, etc. Or another test that derives from the base_test. You can build a family (tree) of closely related tests.

There's nothing special or magic about these files, they are just shell files sourced from run_test.sh script to set test specific variables. That's all. You can run any shell command in these files or whatever you need to do to set variables required by that specific test.

[uturuncoglu]

@DusanJovic-NOAA Thanks. That is what I am looking for. I'll update the test with this approach. It makes the life easier.
@jkbk2004 Thanks for the information. It is great to know that testing system will be improved.

[uturuncoglu]

@jkbk2004 I synced the component and model in my fix branch. I wonder if this could go into commit queue soon since it has some critical fix for land component model. I could also try to introduce a fully coupled configuration in this PR by using cpld_control_p8 as a reference per @junwang-noaa request.

[jkbk2004]

@jkbk2004 I synced the component and model in my fix branch. I wonder if this could go into commit queue soon since it has some critical fix for land component model. I could also try to introduce a fully coupled configuration in this PR by using cpld_control_p8 as a reference per @junwang-noaa request.

@uturuncoglu sounds good! we may be able to schedule to commit around Friday. I will keep you posted.

[uturuncoglu]

@jkbk2004 Thank you. Best,

[DeniseWorthen]

@uturuncoglu Are you able to merge develop and run the test suite on Hercules or Orion and then commit the test_changes.list?

[uturuncoglu]

@DeniseWorthen Okay. I synced. I'll run the full RTs and update you.

[DeniseWorthen]

Great. I'd like to get this committed, since it has been waiting.

[uturuncoglu]

@DeniseWorthen Thanks for your help. I am running RTs on Hercules now.

[uturuncoglu]

@DeniseWorthen I commit test_changes.list. It looks fine to me and only fully coupled configurations (incl. side-by-side) are failing due to answer change and also debug test is failing since it has no baseline yet.

[DeniseWorthen]

@uturuncoglu Yes, that's perfect. If you can get Mike or someone to review the NoahMP PR, this can be marked as ready.

[zach1221]

Testing complete.

[zach1221]

@uturuncoglu please update noahmp submodule hash and revert .gitmodule url.
hash: NOAA-EMC/noahmp@1e25901

[uturuncoglu]

Sorry all. There is a sickness situation at home at this point. I am back. So, let me know if you need anything from my side.

[zach1221]

@BrianCurtis-NOAA @jkbk2004 I've appended the bit_base test to the regional_control_gnu ORT log. You'll have to re-review the PR following the change.

[uturuncoglu]

@zach1221 @jkbk2004 @BrianCurtis-NOAA I think there is a minor bug in rt.sh on head of develop. See,

ufs-weather-model/tests/rt.sh

Line 809 in 04bbc15

DISKNM=/"work/noaa/epic/UFS-WM_RT"

Do you want to add fix to this PR?

[jkbk2004]

@zach1221 @jkbk2004 @BrianCurtis-NOAA I think there is a minor bug in rt.sh on head of develop. See,

ufs-weather-model/tests/rt.sh

Line 809 in 04bbc15

DISKNM=/"work/noaa/epic/UFS-WM_RT"

Do you want to add fix to this PR?

fixed