Skip to content

Rename a bunch of jgdas/exgdas to jglobal/exglobal#4293

Merged
DavidHuber-NOAA merged 4 commits intoNOAA-EMC:developfrom
aerorahul:feature/issue-4241
Dec 5, 2025
Merged

Rename a bunch of jgdas/exgdas to jglobal/exglobal#4293
DavidHuber-NOAA merged 4 commits intoNOAA-EMC:developfrom
aerorahul:feature/issue-4241

Conversation

@aerorahul
Copy link
Contributor

@aerorahul aerorahul commented Dec 4, 2025

Description

This PR:

Type of change

  • Maintenance (code refactor, clean-up, new CI test, etc.)

Change characteristics

  • Is this a breaking change (a change in existing functionality)? NO
  • Does this change require a documentation update? NO
  • Does this change require an update to any of the following submodules? NO

How has this been tested?

Tested on GaeaC6 at:
/gpfs/f6/drsa-precip4/world-shared/Rahul.Mahajan/RUNTESTS/gw-4241

Checklist

  • Any dependent changes have been merged and published
  • My code follows the style guidelines of this project
  • I have performed a self-review of my own code
  • I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
  • I have documented my code, including function, input, and output descriptions
  • My changes generate no new warnings
  • New and existing tests pass with my changes
  • This change is covered by an existing CI test or a new one has been added
  • Any new scripts have been added to the .github/CODEOWNERS file with owners
  • I have made corresponding changes to the system documentation if necessary

Copy link
Contributor

@RussTreadon-NOAA RussTreadon-NOAA left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks straightforward. The real test is that g-w CI with these changes (a) runs without error and (b) generates identical output.

I don't think any of the g-w CI cases run the enkf in both the gfs and gdas cycles. Does GFS v17 run in this mode? If yes, can we run a lo-res GFS v17 test to confirm everything works as intended? If no, should we consider modifying an existing g-w CI test to cover this case?

Conditionally approve pending satisfactory results from g-w CI and, potentially, other tests.

DavidHuber-NOAA
DavidHuber-NOAA previously approved these changes Dec 5, 2025
@DavidHuber-NOAA
Copy link
Contributor

@aerorahul It looks like a shellcheck from your previous PR (#4267) snuck through. Can you please address this warning:

https://github.com/NOAA-EMC/global-workflow/actions/runs/19902051456/job/57048361017?pr=4267#step:3:255

@aerorahul
Copy link
Contributor Author

@aerorahul It looks like a shellcheck from your previous PR (#4267) snuck through. Can you please address this warning:

https://github.com/NOAA-EMC/global-workflow/actions/runs/19902051456/job/57048361017?pr=4267#step:3:255

done via fd0cd09

@DavidHuber-NOAA
Copy link
Contributor

Merging based on successful tests performed by @aerorahul.

@DavidHuber-NOAA DavidHuber-NOAA added the CI-Gaeac6-Passed (cm) Manual CI passed on Gaea C6 label Dec 5, 2025
@DavidHuber-NOAA DavidHuber-NOAA merged commit b6604d0 into NOAA-EMC:develop Dec 5, 2025
6 checks passed
@aerorahul aerorahul deleted the feature/issue-4241 branch December 5, 2025 15:00
JessicaMeixner-NOAA pushed a commit to JessicaMeixner-NOAA/global-workflow that referenced this pull request Dec 9, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

CI-Gaeac6-Passed (cm) Manual CI passed on Gaea C6

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Rename ensemble jobs/scripts from "gdas" to "global" for EE2

3 participants