Feature 1965 ioda2nc same input

[hsoh-u]

• The duplicated variable names are filtered.
• The output variable names from the config file are processed just before saving NetCDF file
• Use the raw variable names for internal processing.

Expected Differences

• Do these changes introduce new tools, command line arguments, or configuration file options? [No]
  
  If yes, please describe:
  

• Do these changes modify the structure of existing or add new output data types (e.g. statistic line types or NetCDF variables)? [No]
  
  If yes, please describe:
  

Pull Request Testing

• Describe testing already performed for these changes:
  

Ran two commands: with/without -iodafile

Command 1: without -iodafile option (no error)

/d1/personal/hsoh/git/pull_request/MET_feature_1965_ioda2nc_same_input/met/bin/ioda2nc /d1/personal/hsoh/data/IODA_files/ioda.NC001007.2020031012.nc out_ioda.NC001007.2020031012.nc_units.nc /d1/projects/MET/MET_regression/develop/NB20210916/MET-develop/test/config/IODA2NCConfig_mask -v 2

Command 2: with -iodafile and the same input file name (failed to generate output before)

/d1/personal/hsoh/git/pull_request/MET_feature_1965_ioda2nc_same_input/met/bin/ioda2nc /d1/personal/hsoh/data/IODA_files/ioda.NC001007.2020031012.nc out_ioda.NC001007.2020031012.nc_units.nc /d1/projects/MET/MET_regression/develop/NB20210916/MET-develop/test/config/IODA2NCConfig_mask -iodafile /d1/personal/hsoh/data/IODA_files/ioda.NC001007.2020031012.nc -v 2

The problem was the same variable names were added twice into the variable name list.

• Recommend testing for the reviewer(s) to perform, including the location of input datasets, and any additional instructions:
  

Do the similar test with different input file or run unit test for ioda2nc.
Or run METplus script you have.

• Do these changes include sufficient documentation updates, ensuring that no errors or warnings exist in the build of the documentation? [No]

• Do these changes include sufficient testing updates? [Yes]

Added one more unit test, "ioda2nc_same_input".

• Will this PR result in changes to the test suite? [Yes]
  
  If yes, describe the new output and/or changes to the existing output:
  

One more output file from the unit test: ioda2nc/ioda.NC001007.2020031012.same_input.nc

• Please complete this pull request review by [Fill in date].
  

Pull Request Checklist

See the METplus Workflow for details.

• Complete the PR definition above.
• Ensure the PR title matches the feature or bugfix branch name.
• Define the PR metadata, as permissions allow.
  Select: Reviewer(s)
  Select: Organization level software support Project or Repository level development cycle Project
  Select: Milestone as the version that will include these changes
• After submitting the PR, select Linked issues with the original issue number.
• After the PR is approved, merge your changes. If permissions do not allow this, request that the reviewer do the merge.
• Close the linked issue and delete your feature or bugfix branch from GitHub.

[georgemccabe]

I ran some tests using the feature branch executable on kiowa and confirmed that the expected behavior occurred. I modified the IODA2NC.conf METplus use case conf file to include a duplicate input file. I ran the use case using this branch and confirmed that it ran successfully and skipped the duplicate file. I ran the use case again on the latest MET beta on kiowa and confirmed that it fails.

I made one inline comment about a variable that appears to be uninitialized when it is used unless it is being set by the command in the if-block that is run before the line in question. Once that is fixed or if I am misunderstanding what is happening here, then I approve of this pull request.

[georgemccabe]

I misunderstood the logic in my first review. The changes look good.