Feature #2523 dim_order

[JohnHalleyGotway]

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)? [Yes]
  
  If yes, please describe:
  
  This changes the dimension order for the NetCDF files written by the TC-RMW tool to list the time dimension first (i.e. track point), the vertical level dimension second if applicable (i.e. pressure), range third, and azimuth last. For this work, I made changes to library code, tc_rmw application code, rmw_analysis application code, and the docs.

NOTE: The rmw_analysis code is NOT smart enough to handle both dimension orders. If you pass it data in an order it doesn't expect, it'll error out like this:

DEBUG 2: Processing PRMSL
terminate called after throwing an instance of 'netCDF::exceptions::NcEdge'
  what():  NetCDF: Start+count exceeds dimension bound
file: ncVar.cpp  line:1622
FATAL: Received Signal Abort. Exiting 6

Personally, I don't think it's worth investing time and effort to make rmw_analysis backward compatible.

But @KathrynNewman if you tell me otherwise, I could work on it.

Pull Request Testing

• Describe testing already performed for these changes:
  
  Confirmed that unit_tc_rmw.xml and unit_rmw_analysis.xml both work as expected.

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

• Inspect the code changes.

• Confirm all the unit tests run without error via GHA.

• The GHA tests should flag the diffs and confirm that the difference is just the order of the dimensions.

• Do these changes include sufficient documentation updates, ensuring that no errors or warnings exist in the build of the documentation? [Yes]
  While I did update the order of dimensions listed in the documentation, the documentation for the TC-RMW and RMW-Analysis tools is rather sparse.

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

• Will this PR result in changes to the test suite? [Yes]
  
  If yes, describe the new output and/or changes to the existing output:
  
  Changes the NetCDF output from the TC-RMW and RMW-Analysis tools.

• Please complete this pull request review by [Fri 4/28/23].
  

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.

[jprestop]

I have inspected the code changes and have confirmed that all the unit tests ran without error via GHA, except the one failed test that was expected which flagged the diffs. I have confirmed that the errors were simply that "NetCDF headers differ" and that there were no other errors. I approve this pull request. Thanks for all of your work on this @JohnHalleyGotway.