Fix JEDI_LFRic forecast_pseudo test config

[DanStoneMO]

PR Summary

Sci/Tech Reviewer:
Code Reviewer: @james-bruten-mo

When running lfric-jedi (https://github.com/JCSDA-internal/lfric-jedi) using its 'mobbalt' opt, the JEDI-LFRic interface is built and tested as part of the workflow. Following PR #174 merging, the testing fails due to missing configuration sections and options in the forecast_pseudo test. See: https://cylchub/services/cylc-review/view/daniel.stone?&suite=mob-la-174-4&no_fuzzy_time=0&path=log/job/1/test_jelf__spice_gnu_debug/01/job.err for output.

This PR updates the forecast_pseudo model configuration to include the required options, as well as the iodef to reflect a recent name change in two of the fields.

• fixes JEDI Interface testing fails when lfric-jedi is run #287

Code Quality Checklist

• I have performed a self-review of my own code
• My code follows the project's style guidelines
• Comments have been included that aid understanding and enhance the readability of the code
• My changes generate no new warnings
• All automated checks in the CI pipeline have completed successfully

Testing

• I have tested this change locally, using the LFRic Apps rose-stem suite - results
• If any tests fail (rose-stem or CI) the reason is understood and acceptable (e.g. kgo changes)
• I have added tests to cover new functionality as appropriate (e.g. system tests, unit tests, etc.)
• Any new tests have been assigned an appropriate amount of compute resource and have been allocated to an appropriate testing group (i.e. the developer tests are for jobs which use a small amount of compute resource and complete in a matter of minutes)

JEDI_LFRic tests are not tested when running the rose-stem suite. I have manually triggered and confirmed it runs without error and can provide output on request. The repository from before the bug emerged no longer builds, so I am currently unable to determine if the results have changed. (Are any KGOs available?)

Security Considerations

• I have reviewed my changes for potential security issues
• Sensitive data is properly handled (if applicable)
• Authentication and authorisation are properly implemented (if applicable)

Performance Impact

• Performance of the code has been considered and, if applicable, suitable performance measurements have been conducted

AI Assistance and Attribution

• Some of the content of this change has been produced with the assistance of Generative AI tool name (e.g., Met Office Github Copilot Enterprise, Github Copilot Personal, ChatGPT GPT-4, etc) and I have followed the Simulation Systems AI policy (including attribution labels)

Documentation

• Where appropriate I have updated documentation related to this change and confirmed that it builds correctly

PSyclone Approval

• If you have edited any PSyclone-related code (e.g. PSyKAl-lite, Kernel interface, optimisation scripts, LFRic data structure code) then please contact the TCD Team

Sci/Tech Review

• I understand this area of code and the changes being added
• The proposed changes correspond to the pull request description
• Documentation is sufficient (do documentation papers need updating)
• Sufficient testing has been completed

(Please alert the code reviewer via a tag when you have approved the SR)

Code Review

• All dependencies have been resolved
• Related Issues have been properly linked and addressed
• CLA compliance has been confirmed
• Code quality standards have been met
• Tests are adequate and have passed
• Documentation is complete and accurate
• Security considerations have been addressed
• Performance impact is acceptable

[DanStoneMO]

I've just tested the other jedi_lfric tests, and all except for forecast fail in the same way. I'll be applying the same fix to them.

[tom-j-h]

@DanStoneMO The canned configurations in the example directories should match configurations run in the rose-stem test suite (I did this with ones I modified but may have missed something if you're getting failures).

The best way to update the canned configurations would be to run the rose stem test suite with --group=jedi_lfric_tests_developer, then copy the namelists generated (~/cylc-run/{SUITE_NAME}/runN/work/1/{TASK_NAME}/configuration.nml) in the following tasks to their corresponding example directory. (In fact, it's better to do this with a graphical diff tool, because the namelists generated by the suite will have things that you don't need or want).

Task name	Example directory
run_jedi_lfric_tests_nwp_gal9-C12_MG_azspice_gnu_fast-debug-64bit	example
run_jedi_lfric_tests_forecast_gh-si-for-linear-C12_azspice_gnu_fast-debug-64bit	example_forecast
run_jedi_lfric_tests_forecast_pseudo_default-C12_azspice_gnu_fast-debug-64bit or run_jedi_lfric_tests_forecast_pseudo_pseudomodel-C12_azspice_gnu_fast-debug-64bit (not sure which but it probably doesn't matter too much - Steve might have an opinion)	example_forecast_pseudo
run_jedi_lfric_tests_id_tlm_tests_nwp_gal9-C12_MG_azspice_gnu_fast-debug-64bit	example_id_tlm_tests
run_jedi_lfric_tests_tlm_forecast_tl_nwp_gal9-C12_MG_azspice_gnu_fast-debug-64bit	example_tlm_forecast_tl
run_jedi_lfric_tests_tlm_tests_nwp_gal9-C12_MG_azspice_gnu_fast-debug-64bit	example_tlm_tests

Let me know if you're unsure about anything.

It may also be useful to have the canned configurations run as part of the rose-stem test suite. Other applications do this, for example adjoint_tests. I'm not sure how it's set up but perhaps you could look into it. That would protect us from having this problem again.

Also, have you started a conversation with the LFRic team about getting this fix merged into main before the upcoming release? They may consider it as a hotfix, but they should know ASAP!

[tommbendall]

The current set of options that you've proposed look like they would fix any issues following the merge of #174 (apologies), but I'd be happy to advise about any particular options if there are still issues after you've followed Tom H's suggestions

[matthewrmshin]

I've applied the branch of this PR to (JEDI) daily build. Can confirm that this change fixes the failure.

[DanStoneMO]

I'm currently unable to test any more changes due to a failure in the build, which seems to also be affecting main. Any knowledge on this from anyone?

Also thanks for the advice @tom-j-h, who would be the best person to let know on the LFRic team?

[james-bruten-mo]

Looks fine, and not going to affect lfric testing as it's currently setup
I'll look at getting these example configurations tested regularly once the current release is out

[DanStoneMO]

I've prepared similar fixes for the other jedi_lfric tests locally. I'll commit them once I've been able to test them.

[james-bruten-mo]

@DanStoneMO I'll bypass the branch protection for this PR, but could you get verified commits setup for your next one please. We have docs for that at https://metoffice.github.io/simulation-systems/WorkingPractices/gh_authorisation.html#verified-commits

[tom-j-h]

Looks fine, and not going to affect lfric testing as it's currently setup I'll look at getting these example configurations tested regularly once the current release is out

Thanks very much!

[james-bruten-mo]

@DanStoneMO are you adding the other configs in this PR? If so, the sooner the better, but I'll need to commit this today as we're almost ready for the release

[DanStoneMO]

I've managed to get a fresh build so I can now test my changes to the other configs. All going well I should be able to add them to this PR soon

[DanStoneMO]

I think that's all of them. I've not yet tested for results change, but I can confirm they now run without error

[ss421]

I think that's all of them. I've not yet tested for results change, but I can confirm they now run without error

It is enough that they run :-) thanks for the update.

[james-bruten-mo]

Thanks all for sorting