Modifications for ufs-coastal app

[DeniseWorthen]

Commit Queue Requirements:

• Fill out all sections of this template.
• All sub component pull requests have been reviewed by their code managers.
• Run the full Intel+GNU RT suite (compared to current baselines) on either Hera/Derecho/Hercules
• Commit 'test_changes.list' from previous step

---

Description:

Updates WW3 for modifications and fixes required by UFS-Coastal App

Commit Message:

* UFSWM - adds additional compile switch and namelist changes required for WW3 in Coastal App
  * WW3 - add export fields required for coupling with SCHISM

Priority:

• Normal (but PR has been held since late summer due to PR pause in WW3 repo)

Git Tracking

UFSWM:

• required by Improve WW3 mesh cap to allow using vortex formulation in ocean side oceanmodeling/WW3#11

Sub component Pull Requests:

• WW3: Add fields and fixes to dev/ufs-weather-model branch, as required by Coastal App NOAA-EMC/WW3#1291

UFSWM Blocking Dependencies:

• None

---

Changes

Regression Test Changes (Please commit test_changes.list):

• PR Updates/Changes Baselines.

None

Input data Changes:

• None.

Library Changes/Upgrades:

• Required
  • Library names w/versions:
  • Git Stack Issue (JCSDA/spack-stack#)
• No Updates

---

Testing Log:

• RDHPCS
  • Hera
  • Orion
  • Hercules
  • Jet
  • Gaea
  • Derecho
• WCOSS2
  • Dogwood/Cactus
  • Acorn
• CI
• opnReqTest (complete task if unnecessary)

[uturuncoglu]

@DeniseWorthen Do you think that we need to find more meaningful aliases for the new fields defined in the dictionary. We could try to come up a set of standard names for them but not sure. Let me know what you think?

[DeniseWorthen]

@uturuncoglu I'm not sure how useful the aliases are if we have the description. So, for example we could make an alias for Sw_ubry but it would basically be the description, something like alias: near_bottom_rms_wave_velocities_y? Do you know if SCHISM for example would prefer to import a field using a descriptive alias?

I do see now I should have probably named some of the new fields with "Fw" (as fluxes) and not "Sw" as states.

[uturuncoglu]

@DeniseWorthen Yes, SCHSIM follows convention like that. See following part, https://github.com/oceanmodeling/schism-esmf/blob/12e2ce43475fe85212c60de7894524d22a1bab96/src/schism/schism_nuopc_cap.F90#L414. It is not big deal and I am using short names at this point for the implementation but we might consider to add aliases and use them in the SCHSIM side. anyway, I'll let you know when PR is ready in ufs coastal side. So, you could check it.

[DeniseWorthen]

I see, thanks. We definitely might need aliases then.

[uturuncoglu]

@DeniseWorthen @JessicaMeixner-NOAA @janahaddad We had a meeting with costal team today. Here is our proposal,

• Let's keep this PR and also WW3 one active for now. So, it might be merged with the UFS WM around November time frame (waiting in freeze mode 2-3 months) once WW3 team have more resource. We have no rush at this point and we could still test the implementation in our end without any issue.

• In the mean time, I'll create a new branch in our UFS WM fork to bring all these changes. This will allow us to have further test in vortex coupling with a new configuration (we are working on it in Coastal side) and also create new RT to test it regularly. It will also help us to find issues in the coupling if we have and then we could fine tune the PR in here if it is required.

• Then, once top level UFS WM PR is merged, we could sync UFS Costal fork to get all the changes.

Anyway, let me know what do you think about this plan. We are open any other suggestion at this point.

[DeniseWorthen]

@uturuncoglu I do think it is a good idea for Coastal to test the changes in the WW3 cap as much as possible while we wait for the stoppage of PRs in WW3 to lift. Also keep in mind that once the stoppage lifts, PRs to dev/ufs-weather-model will most likely be further delayed as community development (going to the develop branch) will also need to proceed.

Also, I wanted to make Coastal aware of Issue NOAA-EMC/WW3#1298 in case you haven't seen it.

[uturuncoglu]

@DeniseWorthen That is great. BTW, Thanks for pointing the PIO PR.

[uturuncoglu]

@DeniseWorthen I just wonder if we have any time estimate for this PR.

[DeniseWorthen]

@uturuncoglu I'm not sure. It really depends on the when the WW3 PR comes to the top of the list. @JessicaMeixner-NOAA Do we have a time-frame for that? I know you've got a lot of PRs just to get up to current develop.

[JessicaMeixner-NOAA]

Does this require the top of WW3 develop for being merged in? The WW3 PR: NOAA-EMC/WW3#1291 has been approved. For the first of the PRs for WW3 develop -> dev/ufs-waether-model to be merged, I'm waiting on a WW3 review which will hopefully be complete by mid-next week. Then the second WW3 PR has been created and then we'll have 1-2 additional ones after that.

[DeniseWorthen]

@JessicaMeixner-NOAA No, it does not require the develop branch update. I meant simply in terms of workload. I didn't realize it had been approved! Sorry.

@uturuncoglu The PR to UWM is open, but I will a) retest and b) add a comment that it is now ready on the WW3 side (after PR pause).

[uturuncoglu]

@DeniseWorthen Okay. Thanks. Let me know if you need anything from my end.

[DeniseWorthen]

This PR is ready and now contains no baseline change since binary restart are no longer used for any UWM test. It has been held since late summer due to PR pause in WW3.