The recent commit 629d27a has added a Github actions file (regtest_gnu) that fails with a syntax error message

[CarstenHansen]

Describe the bug
I update WW3 on my repository with:

git pull https://github.com/NOAA-EMC/WW3.git develop
git push origin develop # where origin is git@github.com:CarstenHansen/WW3.git

Upon push to my own Github repositoty, three 'Actions' are run, of which the third (regtest_gnu) is a new one in commit 629d27a and fails with the annotation:

"Invalid workflow file: .github/workflows/regtest_gnu.yml#L95
You have an error in your yaml syntax on line 95"

To Reproduce
I update WW3 on my repository with:

git pull https://github.com/NOAA-EMC/WW3.git develop
git push origin develop # where origin is git@github.com:CarstenHansen/WW3.git

Then Github runs the thee 'Actions' GNU Linux Build, Intel Linux Build, and regtest_gnu.

Expected behavior
I wouldn't care if the file regtest_gnu.yml was omitted. But it should not have a syntax error.

Screenshots
If applicable, add screenshots to help explain your problem.

Additional context
I am not familiar with Spack, but I tried to check the file regtest_gnu.yml file with https://rhysd.github.io/actionlint/ . It seems that lines 95 and 94 have no syntax errors, and hence there may be a complex of other code errors.

[MatthewMasarik-NOAA]

Thanks for catching this @CarstenHansen, I'm looking into it now.

[MatthewMasarik-NOAA]

@CarstenHansen - I found two small bugs that when fixed, get you passed the failure. This allows the regtest to complete successfully, but then it fails later in the commands that try to compare output files after the run. I have a branch with the two fixes, and that also comments out those last file check commands, which just passed all github CI successfully. I'll push this as a draft PR now, given the federal holiday tomorrow, and Jessica is also on leave. I'd like to let her and @edwardhartnett have a chance to weigh in on whether this is a reasonable fix. If no big changes are suggested, which I don't foresee, we should be able to process this on Thursday.

[MatthewMasarik-NOAA]

Draft PR: #1253

[CarstenHansen]

The draft PR #1253 solves this issue perfectly.