rose edit for lfric_apps rose-stem apps not working?

[MichaelWhitall]

Hi all!

Back to this fiddly thing about testing the rose edit GUI works with lfric_apps branch meta-data (when you also need to point to the lfric core meta-data)... I'm sure I had this working before, but today I can't get it to work. Any idea what's wrong?

On my VDI, I have checked-out a copy of lfric core:

> cd /net/home/h05/mwhitall/UM/branches
> mkdir lfric_core2.0
> fcm checkout fcm:[email protected] lfric_core2.0

Then in my lfric_apps dev branch working copy I have run all the incantations specified in the instructions on the working practices at
https://metoffice.github.io/simulation-systems/WorkingPractices/inputs.html
as follows:

> cd /net/home/h05/mwhitall/UM/branches/7401_bl_dsc_fixes/vn2.0.1_bl_dsc_fixes
> module load scitools
> export CYLC_VERSION=8
> export ROSE_PYTHONPATH=$PYTHONPATH
> export ROSE_META_PATH=/net/home/h05/mwhitall/UM/branches/lfric_core2.0
> rose edit -C rose-stem/app/lfric_atm

But when I do this, the rose edit GUI opens with an error complaining that it can't find the meta-data:

Error:
Could not find metadata for applications/lfric_atm/rose-meta/lfric-lfric_atm/vn2.0

I can see 2 problems here:
a) The above directory definitely does exist in my lfric_apps branch working copy; why can't it find it?

> ls applications/lfric_atm/rose-meta/lfric-lfric_atm/vn2.0
> rose-meta.conf

b) Why is it looking in vn2.0 meta-data and not HEAD, to pick up my branch meta-data?

So for now I'm back to one of my earlier questions; how can I test my branch meta-data in the rose edit gui?

Cheers!
Mike

[MichaelWhitall]

OK so an update; I kept poking around and I think I might have figured out the problems. There are more steps to this than are stated in the working-practices; any chance they can be updated?

First problem (a) - rose edit failing to find the meta-data... I think the issue is that when I ran:
export ROSE_META_PATH=path/to/lfric/core
(as stated in the working practices), this made rose edit only look for the meta-data in my lfric core working copy instead of looking in my lfric_apps working copy. Obviously it actually needs to look in both, and this is actually clarified here:
https://code.metoffice.gov.uk/trac/lfric/wiki/GhaspSupport/PhysicsHandsOn#Metadata
where it says we need to run:
export ROSE_META_PATH=/path/to/core_vnX.X:/path/to/apps_vnX.X

So when I'm about to launch rose edit from my lfric_apps working copy, it is sufficient just to append :. onto the end of what it says I should set ROSE_META_PATH to, so that it looks in my current working directory as well as my copy of lfric core:
export ROSE_META_PATH=path/to/lfric/core:.
I wonder if this behaviour is shell-dependent, in terms of whether you need to specify that the current working directory is still in-scope?

[james-bruten-mo]

Hi Mike, I was just about to reply to you with that suggestion!

A shell dependency feels possible as using your working copies with your original export ROSE_META_PATH command works for me. Hopefully you've got something working ok for now? We are actively looking at getting central metadata which will simplify this.

As for the vn2.0 question, I imagine it's the version listed at the top of the rose-app.conf. If you run on a test branch after running the macro script (I assume you've got a macro) give the correct version? Or you can edit the meta=... line in the rose-app.conf to end with HEAD instead of vn2.0. Obviously can't commit to trunk, but it's an option for testing.

[MichaelWhitall]

Now problem (b) - rose edit looks in the rose-meta in vn2.0 instead of looking in HEAD, so doesn't actually use my branch meta-data! I found that this is indeed the case. i.e. when opening the lfric_atm app in my dev branch (which of course hasn't been updated with the new compulsory namelist inputs added by my branch; they'll get added by the upgrade macro), the gui makes no complaint at all about the required new namelist entries being absent!

So in the rose-app.conf file I needed to change the line:
meta=applications/lfric_atm/rose-meta/lfric-lfric_atm/vn2.0
to
meta=applications/lfric_atm/rose-meta/lfric-lfric_atm/HEAD
Only then did the gui actually use and test my branch meta-data.

Finally, of course if we want to see how the gui behaves when any settings added or removed by the branch have actually been updated in the app consistent with the branch meta-data / upgrade macro, then we need to launch rose edit from the test branch (after running the apply_macros.py script), not the dev branch. And when we do that, we have to explicitly tell rose edit not to worry about the metadata not containing the "after_tag" specified in the upgrade macro by passing rose edit the --no-warn version flag.

So, maybe in the working practices, Re how to test your meta-data in the rose gui, it could say something like:

In your test branch, after running the apply_macros.py script, run

export ROSE_PYTHONPATH=$PYTHONPATH
export ROSE_META_PATH=/path/to/valid/core:.
rose edit -C rose-stem/app/APP-NAME --no-warn version

That works for me at least :)

Cheers!
Mike

[james-bruten-mo]

Yes, that sounds sensible, thanks. I'll get those instructions clarified.