Skip to content
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

Feature #2278 qm_docs #2364

Merged
merged 10 commits into from
Dec 5, 2022
Merged

Feature #2278 qm_docs #2364

merged 10 commits into from
Dec 5, 2022

Conversation

JohnHalleyGotway
Copy link
Collaborator

@JohnHalleyGotway JohnHalleyGotway commented Dec 1, 2022

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 a full regression test in this GHA run and note that one difference is flagged.

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

    • @hsoh-u please review the actual code change to keep track of the max quality flag for PBL and CAPE. And can you confirm that we SHOULD only be computing them from the first level? Is there a reason we don't compute the maximum quality flag over all levels used? Please also note the tweak to the python print utility.
    • @PerryShafran-NOAA these changes would modify the quality flag values for PBL and CAPE from a value of 2 to 8 or 9 (see below) since thats the maximum quality value of their components. Is this good? Or will it cause trouble for your verification of CAPE/PBL?
    • @TaraJensen please review the documentation changes included in the PR (or reassign to another scientist to review). You can see them rendered via RTD starting after this table.
  • Do these changes include sufficient documentation updates, ensuring that no errors or warnings exist in the build of the documentation? [Yes]

  • Do these changes include sufficient testing updates? [Yes]
    No changes needed.

  • Will this PR result in changes to the test suite? [Yes]

    If yes, describe the new output and/or changes to the existing output:

    This changes one output file:

COMPARING pb2nc_indy/nam.20210311.t00z.prepbufr.tm00.pbl.nc
ERROR: NetCDF headers differ:
12c12
< 	nobs_qty = 1 ;
---
> 	nobs_qty = 2 ;

I dumped these to ascii and confirmed that the only changes are in the qty column.
All that that previously had a value of '2' are now '8' or '9'.

  • Please complete this pull request review by [Mon 12/5/22].

Pull Request Checklist

See the METplus Workflow for details.

  • Review the source issue metadata (required labels, projects, and milestone).
  • 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 Development 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.

…. Also, update pb2nc logic to track the maximum quality mark for CAPE and PBL rather than just the most recent one! I wonder if that'll change the regression test output?
…ues of bad data. See unit test output file ndas.20120409.t12z.prepbufr.tm00.summary.nc. Update the print_pointnc2ascii.py to avoid runtime error about convert masked array elements to int.
…triction of computing CAPE and PBL quality marks from only the first vertical level. Instead, compute the maximum quality mark over all vertical levels.
Copy link
Collaborator

@hsoh-u hsoh-u left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The cape_qm and pbl_qm are initialized once at line 1003 and line 1006. They do not need to reset when the quality mark is from the lowest level. Now it's changed to look at all vertical levels. They (cape_qm and pbl_qm) should be initialized for the next computed PBL and CAPE.

Comment on lines 1355 to 1358
if (do_pbl) {
pbl_level = 0;
pbl_qm = bad_data_float;
}
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The code was not cleaned up. Handling pbl_level is moved to compute_pbl from process_pbfile. pbm_qm should be initialized after saving the computed PBL. The PBL is computed from two messages: one message with TPQ and other message with UV.

            pqtzuv_list.clear();
            pqtzuv_map_tq.clear();
            pqtzuv_map_uv.clear();
         }

to

            pqtzuv_list.clear();
            pqtzuv_map_tq.clear();
            pqtzuv_map_uv.clear();
            pbl_qm = bad_data_float;
         }

@hsoh-u hsoh-u self-requested a review December 3, 2022 00:44
Copy link
Collaborator

@hsoh-u hsoh-u left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The quality mark for PBL is initialized at the right place which are combined from two messages.

@JohnHalleyGotway JohnHalleyGotway linked an issue Dec 5, 2022 that may be closed by this pull request
20 tasks
@JohnHalleyGotway JohnHalleyGotway merged commit 26eac81 into develop Dec 5, 2022
@JohnHalleyGotway JohnHalleyGotway deleted the feature_2278_qm_docs branch December 5, 2022 19:46
JohnHalleyGotway added a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 5, 2022
Co-authored-by: Seth Linden <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Howard Soh <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Dave Albo <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: John Halley Gotway <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: johnhg <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Lisa Goodrich <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: jprestop <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: MET Tools Test Account <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: j-opatz <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: George McCabe <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Julie Prestopnik <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Jonathan Vigh <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Seth Linden <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: hsoh-u <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: bikegeek <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: davidalbo <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: lisagoodrich <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Daniel Adriaansen <[email protected]>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
No open projects
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Document PB2NC's handling of quality markers
2 participants