Skip to content

Add 2 scripts to run eagle more conveniently#196

Open
weihuang-jedi wants to merge 5 commits into
mainfrom
feature/creating-run-scripts
Open

Add 2 scripts to run eagle more conveniently#196
weihuang-jedi wants to merge 5 commits into
mainfrom
feature/creating-run-scripts

Conversation

@weihuang-jedi

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Description:

Add 2 scripts:
runeagle.sh -- run eagle. runeagle.sh -h to get more info.
runnrt.sh -- run nrt, runnrt.sh -h to get more info.

Type of change:

  • Bug fix
  • [ x] New feature
  • Refactor / cleanup
  • Documentation
  • CI/CD or tooling
  • Other:

Area(s) affected

  • nested_eagle workflow
  • Verification / evaluation (via WXVX)
  • Data prep / UFS2ARCO
  • Config (YAML)
  • Plotting / post-processing
  • Infrastructure / Slurm scripts
  • [ x] Other:

Commit Requirements:

  • This PR addresses a relevant NOAA-EPIC/EAGLE issue (if not, create an issue); a person responsible for submitting the update has been assigned to the issue (link issue)
  • Fill out all sections of this template.
  • [ x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
  • [ x] My changes generate no new warnings
  • I have made corresponding changes to the system documentation if necessary

Testing / Verification:

  • I ran and/or verified the changes (or provided a test plan)
  • Commands/config used:
    • runeagle.sh -n case-name -s [config, data, training, inference, verification, visualization]
    • runnrt.sh -n case-name -s [config, data, inference, verification, visualization]
  • Evidence (logs, key output paths, screenshots if relevant):

Runtime Environment:

  • System/HPC: ursa
  • Account/role: epic
  • Conda env: anemoi.yaml base.yaml data.yaml dev.yaml visualization.yaml wxvx.yaml
  • Key versions (optional):
    • python --version: Python 3.12.0
    • wxvx --version (if applicable): wxvx version 0.7.2 build 1
    • MET version (if applicable):

Commit Message:

git ci -m "adding two run scripts"

Subcomponent Pull Requests:

  • None

@maddenp-cu

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Was this proposed feature discussed in either of the EAGLE meetings, science or infrastructure? I don't see the required reference to an Issue, Discussion, etc. in the PR description, and I don't recall hearing anything about this. Can we get some background?

Also, these scripts, if accepted, will need to be subject to the same formatting and linting checks as other shell code in the project, so they should be added to the shfmt call in the format script, and to the BASHSRCS variable in the top-level Makefile. The files themselves should have the .sh extensions removed, as these are inconsistent with the naming of all other shell scripts in the codebase.

@maddenp-cu maddenp-cu left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Needs rationale and discussion.

@weihuang-jedi

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

I was on a task to get familiar with EAGLE, and while doing so, I feel using a script to run in such a script will be more convenient. Since I am not in the develop team, so it may did not follow the coding rules.

People may take a look first, if feel that these 2 scripts are useful, then we can modify them to follow all the rules and name convention as well.

@maddenp-cu

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

I was on a task to get familiar with EAGLE, and while doing so, I feel using a script to run in such a script will be more convenient. Since I am not in the develop team, so it may did not follow the coding rules.

People may take a look first, if feel that these 2 scripts are useful, then we can modify them to follow all the rules and name convention as well.

Hi @weihuang-jedi, and thank you for contributing. I agree that some automation for running a whole EAGLE pipeline would be valuable. We have an open Issue that will provide a Rocoto workflow for running the Quickstart case from the documentation, and work is in progress on this. I think it would be fairly easy to modify that workflow to run other cases. Do you think that this upcoming feature would address your needs, too? There is some discussion in that Issue about the implementation of the feature, so you could review that and provide any input you might have as a user.

@maddenp-cu

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

FYI, a fix for the failure seen in the Code Quality Checks CI job is present on the branch targeted by PR #194, so when that merges to main and you merge it into your branch, that error should disappear.

@weihuang-jedi

weihuang-jedi commented Jun 24, 2026 via email

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants