Allow each model run to have a different experiment ID

[NParsonsMO]

Closes #263 .

PR creation checklist for the developer

• Has <issue_number> above ☝️ been replaced with the issue number?
• Has main been selected as the base branch?
• Does the feature branch name follow the format <issue_number>_<short_description_of_feature>?
• Does the text of the PR title exactly match with the text (not including the issue number) of the issue title?
• Have appropriate reviewers been added to the PR (once it is ready for review)?
• Has the PR been assigned to the developer(s)?
• Have the same labels as on the issue (except for the good first issue label) been added to the PR?
• Has the Climate Model Evaluation Workflow (CMEW) project been added to the PR?
• Has the appropriate milestone been added to the PR?

Definition of Done for the developer

• Does the change in this PR address the above issue / have all acceptance criteria been met?
• Does the change in this PR follow the requirements in the wiki: Developer Guide (including copyrights)?
• Have new tests related to the change been added?
• Do all the GitHub workflow checks pass?
• Do all the tests run locally and pass? (Note: the tests are not run by the GitHub workflow, see wiki: Run the tests locally)
• Has the API documentation (e.g. docstrings in Python modules) related to the change been updated appropriately?
• Has the user documentation (i.e. everything in the doc directory) related to the change been updated appropriately, including the Quick Start section?
• Do the HTML pages render correctly? (See wiki: Build the documentation locally)

PR creation checklist for the reviewer

• Has <issue_number> above ☝️ been replaced with the issue number?
• Has main been selected as the base branch?
• Does the feature branch name follow the format <issue_number>_<short_description_of_feature>?
• Does the text of the PR title exactly match with the text (not including the issue number) of the issue title?
• Have appropriate reviewers been added to the PR (once it is ready for review)?
• Has the PR been assigned to the developer(s)?
• Have the same labels as on the issue (except for the good first issue label) been added to the PR?
• Has the Climate Model Evaluation Workflow (CMEW) project been added to the PR?
• Has the appropriate milestone been added to the PR?

Definition of Done for the reviewer

• Does the change in this PR address the above issue / have all acceptance criteria been met?
• Does the change in this PR follow the requirements in the wiki: Developer Guide (including copyrights)?
• Have new tests related to the change been added? N/A
• Do all the GitHub workflow checks pass?
• Do all the tests run locally and pass? (Note: the tests are not run by the GitHub workflow, see wiki: Run the tests locally)
• Has the API documentation (e.g. docstrings in Python modules) related to the change been updated appropriately? N/A
• Has the user documentation (i.e. everything in the doc directory) related to the change been updated appropriately, including the Quick Start section? N/A
• Do the HTML pages render correctly? (See wiki: Build the documentation locally)

[NParsonsMO]

Commit 80ab7bb is not actually to do with this issue, I wrote SUITE_ID and REF_SUITE_ID into this section in PR #299 https://github.com/MetOffice/CMEW/pull/299/changes, but they were already inherited as part of MODEL_RUNS.

[NParsonsMO]

[mo-nikosbaltas]

All looks good. Run successful including tests.
However the text of the PR title does not match with the text of the issue.

[NParsonsMO]

All looks good. Run successful including tests. However the text of the PR title does not match with the text of the issue.

I am not spotting the difference (admittedly pre coffee)...

[mo-nikosbaltas]

It was me being careless. It is all ok.

[mo-nikosbaltas]

It is all good.

[ehogan]

Thanks @NParsonsMO! 🥳

[mo-nikosbaltas]

Agreed with changes Emma suggested and use experiment_id. Run both unittest and test and both passed.

[ehogan]

Thanks @NParsonsMO! 🥳

[ehogan]

There's a monkeypatch.setenv("REF_EXPERIMENT_ID", "historical") line in CMEW/app/configure_for/bin/test_update_recipe_file.py. Should the REF_EXPERIMENT_ID here match? Should these values be the other way around? 🤔

[NParsonsMO]

Sorry, I didn't mean to press "resolve".

I don't know the answer. These are going to change all the time in real use? Before this change, they were both hardcoded to "amip".

I don't know what type of experiment either run actually was, does a test need to know this, or just that the file will reproduce whatever is set?

There's a comment in update_recipe_file.py here about the change to "amip" from "historical":
https://github.com/MetOffice/CMEW/pull/309/changes#diff-cebbcc20b1948a98773e8a17e02e75d49c69006ec5c379816bcf8fff469aa152