Feature 650 questions2ask

[lisagoodrich]

Pull Request Testing

• Describe testing already performed for these changes:
  Lisa has created a new "Getting Started" chapter with these new questions and the "Running METplus" section. She's confirmed all of the links work. She's added punctuation, directory names are in italics, file names in bold and formatted the Table of Contents.

• Recommend testing for the reviewer(s) to perform, including the location of input datasets, and any additional instructions:
  
  Please review the actual questions for content and clarity.
  There has been some discussion about bolding wrapper names and settings. This isn't always consistent. Please review.
  https://metplus.readthedocs.io/en/feature_650_questions2ask/Users_Guide/getting_started.html

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

• Do these changes include sufficient testing updates? [No, this is documentation only]

• 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 4/22/22.
  

Pull Request Checklist

See the METplus Workflow for details.

• [n/a ] Add any new Python packages to the METplus Components Python Requirements table.
• 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 Linked issues 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.

[j-opatz]

Provided a few comments and suggestions: they are not all critical to a successful PR (most are just rewording suggestions), so select which ones you'd like to act on and feel free to resolve the others without action. To not hold this PR up on my suggested edits, I'll approve the PR.

[TaraJensen]

@lisagoodrich

Recommended changes:

Change:
2.1.1.5. What domain should be used to evaluate on:
2.1.1.5. What domain should be used for evaluation? T

Why is there no suggestion for this:
2.1.1.7. How should the testing and evaluation project be broken down into METplus Use Cases? One large one or multiple smaller ones?

Remove comma after scheduled:
2.1.1.8. How will METplus be run? Manually? Scheduled, through cron?

After those are changed, I approve.

[lisagoodrich]

@Tara Jensen ***@***.***> Comments from John O. 4/19/22 regarding 2.1.1.7. He thought these questions should have their own section. Unfortunately, the questions were never answered. I don't know if I should: 1. Remove the questions. 2. Keep the questions and remove the bolding . 3. Find someone who can answer the question.

…

On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 2:06 PM TaraJensen ***@***.***> wrote: @lisagoodrich <https://github.com/lisagoodrich> Recommended changes: Change: 2.1.1.5. What domain should be used to evaluate on: 2.1.1.5. What domain should be used for evaluation? T Why is there no suggestion for this: 2.1.1.7. How should the testing and evaluation project be broken down into METplus Use Cases? One large one or multiple smaller ones? Remove comma after scheduled: 2.1.1.8. How will METplus be run? Manually? Scheduled, through cron? After those are changed, I approve. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#1573 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AH5Q3CQFP3SKMO7W5LTC2YLVVBL5FANCNFSM5TW7QBFA> . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

-- Lisa Goodrich (she/her) Technician National Center for Atmospheric Research Research Applications Laboratory Email: ***@***.*** My working day may not be your working day. Please do not feel obliged to reply to this email outside of your normal working hours.

[TaraJensen]

@lisagoodrich - my suggestion is we find an answer.
@georgemccabe @j-opatz -

Regarding 2.1.1.7.

2.1.1.7. How should the testing and evaluation project be broken down into
METplus Use Cases? One large one or multiple smaller ones?

Can one or both of you write up an answer to this question. I think it's valid and important and we should give people a guidepost for how to develop use cases.

Thanks

[georgemccabe]

I think the answer depends on what is being evaluated. A single use case is typically appropriate for a given evaluation so that all of the information is found in one configuration file. However, users may want to evaluate different combinations of models and observations. For example, they may want to compare forecastA with observationA, forecastA with observationB, forecastB with observationA, forecastB with observationB, etc. In this case, separate METplus configuration files can be created with information specific to each forecast or observation. Another configuration file can be used to control settings common to each evaluation, such as timing information and the process list. The METplus wrappers can be called with each desired combination.

run_metplus.py forecastA.conf observationA.conf use_case_name.conf
run_metplus.py forecastA.conf observationB.conf use_case_name.conf
run_metplus.py forecastB.conf observationA.conf use_case_name.conf
run_metplus.py forecastB.conf observationB.conf use_case_name.conf

The GridStat_multiple_config use case is an example of how information may be split into separate configuration files, GridStat_forecast.conf and GridStat_observation.conf.

[TaraJensen]

The updated documentation looks good. I approve merging this into develop now. Thanks for your patience!

[lisagoodrich]

Questions have been updated. Branch is ready to close.

[lisagoodrich]

Okay! I've merged this in with develop! George or John, I didn't understand this checkbox: - After submitting the PR, select Linked issues with the original issue number. - I couldn't find "linked issues". Can you help me with this? Thanks, Lisa

…

On Sun, Jul 24, 2022 at 3:41 PM TaraJensen ***@***.***> wrote: The updated documentation looks good. I approve merging this into develop now. Thanks for your patience! — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#1573 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AH5Q3CWYEINWCBLZ72K35EDVVWZ7RANCNFSM5TW7QBFA> . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

-- Lisa Goodrich (she/her) Technician National Center for Atmospheric Research Research Applications Laboratory Email: ***@***.*** My working day may not be your working day. Please do not feel obliged to reply to this email outside of your normal working hours.

[georgemccabe]

@lisagoodrich, the text for "Linked Issues" was replaced with "Development" on the right side of this page. It looks like the correct GitHub issue is linked to this pull request, so that item has been satisfied.

[lisagoodrich]

@georgemccabe Thanks!