Bring in HAFSv1 Related Changes #608
Conversation
…nsembles on developing mod.
…bles on developing mode
Conflicts: src/enkf/Makefile
…I_fv3_reg_ensemble
…I_fv3_reg_ensemble get new updates in the repository
…unctions of ensemble mean and recenter
…ar files as background
…0 for following dual resolution capabilities
…I_fv3_reg_ensemble
|
The regression tests have been finished and all passed with no issue on catcus/WCOSS2. 100% tests passed, 0 tests failed out of 9 Total Test time (real) = 1735.06 sec |
|
Yonghui,
Thank you for the help of testing the cases on WCOSS2.
Ming,
The current branch feature/hafsv1_maxobs_goesr_meso_amvs
<https://github.com/hafs-community/GSI/tree/feature/hafsv1_maxobs_goesr_meso_amvs>
has
already sync with the latest GSI dev branch code. Please let us know if you
need anything else.
Thanks,
Jing
…On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 4:51 PM Yonghui Weng ***@***.***> wrote:
The regression tests have been finished and all passed with no issue on
catcus/WCOSS2.
Test project /lfs/h2/emc/hur/noscrub/yonghui.weng/test/hafs_gsi_1/build
Start 1: global_3dvar
Start 2: global_4dvar
Start 3: global_4denvar
Start 4: hwrf_nmm_d2
Start 5: hwrf_nmm_d3
Start 6: rtma
Start 7: rrfs_3denvar_glbens
Start 8: netcdf_fv3_regional
Start 9: global_enkf
1/9 Test #8 <#8>:
netcdf_fv3_regional .............. Passed 553.20 sec
2/9 Test #5 <#5>: hwrf_nmm_d3
...................... Passed 692.49 sec
3/9 Test #7 <#7>:
rrfs_3denvar_glbens .............. Passed 736.37 sec
4/9 Test #4 <#4>: hwrf_nmm_d2
...................... Passed 737.80 sec
5/9 Test #9 <#9>: global_enkf
...................... Passed 1100.41 sec
6/9 Test #6 <#6>: rtma
............................. Passed 1152.29 sec
7/9 Test #3 <#3>: global_4denvar
................... Passed 1615.97 sec
8/9 Test #2 <#2>: global_4dvar
..................... Passed 1684.74 sec
9/9 Test #1 <#1>: global_3dvar
..................... Passed 1735.01 sec
100% tests passed, 0 tests failed out of 9
Total Test time (real) = 1735.06 sec
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#608 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/BAHEWIOQNTHWC7UGZZ52ZBLX2IMFDANCNFSM6AAAAAA3L7BU5Y>
.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
|
Hi Jing, When I check "Files changed" option, your branch shows many differences that are not from your PR. I am not sure how fix those issues. You branch needs to show the differences from develop that are only from you and show the history that are only related to this PR. May be you need to rebase your branch to current develop branch? Could you try it? Thanks, |
|
Okay, let me try to rebase my branch and see.
Thanks,
Jing
…On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 3:36 PM Ming Hu ***@***.***> wrote:
Hi Jing, When I check "Files changed" option, your branch shows many
differences that are not from your PR.
Also your branch shows:
[JingCheng-NOAA](https://github.com/JingCheng-NOAA) wants to merge 242
commits into [NOAA-EMC:develop](
https://github.com/NOAA-EMC/GSI/tree/develop) from
[hafs-community:feature/hafsv1_maxobs_goesr_meso_amvs](
https://github.com/hafs-community/GSI/tree/feature/hafsv1_maxobs_goesr_meso_amvs
)"
I am not sure how fix those issues. You branch needs to show the
differences from develop that are only from you and show the history that
are only related to this PR. May be you need to rebase your branch to
current develop branch? Could you try it?
Thanks,
Ming
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#608 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/BAHEWINFYZXU6RVEIKAJPJ3X2NME3ANCNFSM6AAAAAA3L7BU5Y>
.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
…axobs_goesr_meso_amvs
* Drop off observations when the number of obs exceeds maxobs to avoid the out of bound/dimension issue in read_anowbufr.f90 read_dbz_nc.f90 read_gmi.f90 read_goesglm.f90 read_radar.f90 read_radar_wind_ascii.f90. (From @yonghuiweng) * Add the capability of assimilating the CIMSS enhanced GOES-R AMVs in a new satwhr bufr file. (From @lbi2018 and @yonghuiweng)
JingCheng-NOAA
force-pushed
the
feature/hafsv1_maxobs_goesr_meso_amvs
branch
from
c3cca77
to
2cabebd
Compare
|
Hi Ming,
We've solved the conflicts and merged all 242 commits into 1 commits ahead.
Please check it out and let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Jing
…On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 3:36 PM Ming Hu ***@***.***> wrote:
Hi Jing, When I check "Files changed" option, your branch shows many
differences that are not from your PR.
Also your branch shows:
[JingCheng-NOAA](https://github.com/JingCheng-NOAA) wants to merge 242
commits into [NOAA-EMC:develop](
https://github.com/NOAA-EMC/GSI/tree/develop) from
[hafs-community:feature/hafsv1_maxobs_goesr_meso_amvs](
https://github.com/hafs-community/GSI/tree/feature/hafsv1_maxobs_goesr_meso_amvs
)"
I am not sure how fix those issues. You branch needs to show the
differences from develop that are only from you and show the history that
are only related to this PR. May be you need to rebase your branch to
current develop branch? Could you try it?
Thanks,
Ming
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#608 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/BAHEWINFYZXU6RVEIKAJPJ3X2NME3ANCNFSM6AAAAAA3L7BU5Y>
.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
…b.com/hafs-community/GSI into feature/hafsv1_maxobs_goesr_meso_amvs
|
@JingCheng-NOAA This PR looks good except some minor cleanings needed. Please check Shun and my comments. After code clean and regression regression test cases on Hera and WCOSS2, we should move forward to merge the code. |
@JingCheng-NOAA I think line 1224 is not necessary. This line can be removed. Please run regression tests again before merging these modifications to "develop," as Ming suggested. |
|
Sure! Will do!
On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 1:24 PM ShunLiu-NOAA ***@***.***>
wrote:
… Yes, I will delete !write(6,*) 'NC005099 readin' . However, for line
1224, if you mean the "!write(6,*)'itype= ',itype", it seems like other
"elseif" block above (e.g. line 1219, line 1214, etc) keeps this one, so to
be consistent, we have this line here. But if you think it is not
necessary, I will delete the line as well.
… <#m_4244432031006601701_>
On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 11:29 AM ShunLiu-NOAA *@*.*> wrote: @.**
commented on this pull request. ------------------------------ In
src/gsi/read_satwnd.f90 <#608 (comment)
<#608 (comment)>>: > @@
-537,6 +539,9 @@ subroutine
read_satwnd(nread,ndata,nodata,infile,obstype,lunout,gstime,twind,sis
itype=246 else if(trim(subset) == 'NC005031') then ! WV clear sky/deep
layer itype=247 + else if(trim(subset) == 'NC005099') then + itype=241 +
!write(6,*) 'NC005099 readin' Could you delete line !write(6,*) 'NC005099
readin' here? ------------------------------ In src/gsi/read_satwnd.f90 <#608
(comment)
<#608 (comment)>>: > @@
-1209,6 +1217,11 @@ subroutine
read_satwnd(nread,ndata,nodata,infile,obstype,lunout,gstime,twind,sis
c_station_id='WV'//stationid c_sprvstg='WV' !write(6,*)'itype= ',itype +
else if(trim(subset) == 'NC005099') then ! WV clear sky/deep layer +
itype=241 + c_station_id='IR'//stationid + c_sprvstg='IR' + !write(6,*)'itype=
',itype Is it necessary to keep line 1224 here? — Reply to this email
directly, view it on GitHub <#608 (review)
<#608 (review)>>,
or unsubscribe
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/BAHEWIKKYJ2SNUYHDIWVFZDX3BSGXANCNFSM6AAAAAA3L7BU5Y
. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: *@*.***>
@JingCheng-NOAA <https://github.com/JingCheng-NOAA> I think line 1224 is
not necessary. This line can be removed. Please run regression tests again
before merging these modifications to "develop," as Ming suggested.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#608 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/BAHEWIIJPJ6OCMA2V7DPFI3X3B7UPANCNFSM6AAAAAA3L7BU5Y>
.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
|
I've made requested changes and updated the branch. 100% tests passed, 0 tests failed out of 9 Total Test time (real) = 1983.36 sec The Regression tests on Dogwoods are ongoing, should be ready later on. |
|
I started over the regression tests on catcus/wcoss2, and passed all 9 tests. 100% tests passed, 0 tests failed out of 9 Total Test time (real) = 1733.74 sec |
|
If we are adding HAFSv1 changes to NOAA-EMC/GSI, now is the time to replace the hwrf regression tests a with hafs test. When will this be done? |
|
Jing is working on preparing the HAFS DA test case. I think her next PR is to add the new HAFS test cases to regression test and remove the old HWRF test cases. |
|
My comments aren't showstoppers but a response is appreciated. Several review comments have unresolved conversations. It's good practice to resolve conversations when the reviewer and developer come to agreement. |
|
Thank you @ShunLiu-NOAA . I see issue #600 has been opened for this task. Good to know that we will replace the hwrf tests with hafs tests. |
|
Yes, we will bring in 4 regression tests for HAFS as described in issue #600. I will create pull request later on once Ming reviewed my datasets. |
Description
Bring in HAFSv1 related maxobs changes and the capability of assimilating GOES-R high-resolution AMVs.
Resolved #599
Type of change
Use "maxobs" as a condition to check whether the number of observations exceeds the limit, to avoid the out of bound/dimension issue in read_anowbufr.f90 read_dbz_nc.f90 read_gmi.f90 read_goesglm.f90 read_radar.f90 read_radar_wind_ascii.f90
This update also added the capability of assimilating the CIMSS enhanced GOES-R AMVs in a new "satwhr" bufr file.
Please delete options that are not relevant.
How Has This Been Tested?
This updates passed the HAFS related regression tests. All tests are performed on Orion.
Checklist
DUE DATE for this PR is 9/21/2023. If this PR is not merged into develop by this date, the PR will be closed and returned to the developer.