Feature 2429 tc pairs members

[sethlinden]

Expected Differences

• Do these changes introduce new tools, command line arguments, or configuration file options? [Yes]
  
  If yes, please describe:
  

Yes, I added a new configuration field for the consensus[] dictionary. Added write_members field. If this is set to FALSE, output for the consensus members will no longer show up in the output file.

• 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 tc_pairs command line passed on the CONSENSUS unit test:

./tc_pairs -adeck /d1/projects/MET/MET_test_data/unit_test/tc_data/adeck/aal132020.dat -bdeck /d1/projects/MET/MET_test_data/unit_test/tc_data/bdeck/bal132020.dat -config ./TCPairsConfig_CONSENSUS -out al132020_CONSENSUS -v 2

After updating ../MET/internal/test_unit/config/TCPairsConfig_CONSENSUS

I also ran the unit test:

unit_tc_pairs.xml

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

Run the unit test:

unit_tc_pairs.xml

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

Yes, I updated the documentation for tc_pairs:

MET/docs/Users_Guide/

tc-pairs.rst

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

No new unit tests were created. Just an updated to the config file: TCPairsConfig_CONSENSUS

• Will this PR result in changes to the test suite? [No]
  
  If yes, describe the new output and/or changes to the existing output:
  

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

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 issue 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.

[JohnHalleyGotway]

I approve of these changes.

Note that consensus.write_members is NOW a required entry. Adding this new requirement may cause a headache for existing users that already have consensus defined in existing TC-Pairs config files. The good news is that this produces an obvious runtime error:

ERROR  : 
ERROR  : Dictionary::lookup_bool() -> lookup failed for name "write_members"
ERROR  : 

I had considered refining the Dictionary::lookup_bool() logic to print a warning message about it being missing instead, but worry about modifying the dictionary lookup logic.

[JohnHalleyGotway]

Proceeding with the merge of this PR. Based on feedback from @j-opatz today, I updated the logic to print a warning message if write_members is missing:

WARNING: 
WARNING: TCPairsConfInfo::process_config() -> "consensus.write_members" is missing. Using default value of true.
WARNING: 

But I confirmed that warning message goes away once you add write_members as a true/false boolean.