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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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
[develop] Fix issues on AQM and NCO mode caused by new YAML interface PR #676 #722
[develop] Fix issues on AQM and NCO mode caused by new YAML interface PR #676 #722
Changes from 18 commits
1f8c5e7
86558bf
05db0c2
44a74de
e6f6ebc
761b9e4
2e6dca5
54b9250
df21e19
a563c75
34bffb9
715883a
4b4ec26
58e61e4
4a18dbc
02be7bb
7776094
5314fb7
5301a5a
296fedb
bca23d9
c53cb9e
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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 don't think this logic works just right.
If DATE_FIRST_CYCL starts at 18Z, and we're looking at the next 00Z cycle, we get:
So we're left with a negative
CYCLE_IDX
and can't get the right information in the list. I'd suggest that we add the requirement onFCST_LEN_CYCL
to define a list that starts from 00Z and increments by theFCST_LEN_CYCL
if you need to define variable forecasts lengths.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 agree with you. {cyc} starts from a lower value. if {cyc} includes "06" and "18", its order will be ["06", "18"] (not ["18", "06"]). I think the 'cyc_mod' will not have a negative value in any cases because these variable forecast length hours are only set per day as you modified it in your former PR:
ufs-srweather-app/ush/setup.py
Line 681 in 662ff2a
What do you think about this? In the above example of ["06", "18"], the current condition will fail because their indexes will be [ "06/12", "18/12"]. With a new condition, they will be ["0", "1"] (["(6-6)/12", "(18-6)/12"]).
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 am still concerned about the use case given that there would be a strong coupling between the
FCST_LEN_CYCL
and theDATE_FIRST_CYCL
andDATE_LAST_CYCL
variables.In the above example, I was suggesting that these might be the user-defined settings for two cycles, where the first is meant to be a short forecast and the second a long one:
This is a specific example of where I'm saying it might be better to require users to define
FCST_LEN_CYCL
as if it were all the possible daily cycles like this:This means that we don't have to handle the "special" cases and aren't so heavily coupling the user-defined dates to the forecast lengths.
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 understand your concern. However, the change in this PR is better than the current one you made because it at least works for the special case. The current version will not work for both cases (my case as well as your case). In my opinion, the best solution is to use my original version:
I understand that you didn't want to use
ALL_CDATES
, but this one will not have any issues. What do you think about 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.
Leaning on ALL_CDATES is not a valid solution for when we want to run a real-time run indefinitely. Do you mind sharing the use case that you are trying to get running? The start and end date, and the forecast lengths you'd like to support?
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 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, if you don't agree with my change, please provide us a reasonable solution. This PR takes so long for review now. The AQM users are not able to use the develop branch now and they are waiting for this PR to be merged. @MichaelLueken, could you please ask other reviewers to review this PR?