Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

METplus User's Documentation corrections #238

Closed
bikegeek opened this issue Jun 5, 2019 · 5 comments
Closed

METplus User's Documentation corrections #238

bikegeek opened this issue Jun 5, 2019 · 5 comments
Assignees
Labels
component: documentation Documentation issue priority: medium Medium Priority type: task An actionable item of work

Comments

@bikegeek
Copy link
Contributor

bikegeek commented Jun 5, 2019

Rob from UKMO has found some typos and made some suggestions for the METplus User's Documentation and README files that are downloaded with the source. Here are the issues captured from Wednesday June 5, 2019:

The following are questions posed by Rob after following the METplus User’s Documentation:

METplus docs typos, questions:

2.5 directions for cloning should precede the description of the directories

(swap 2.5 and 2.6)???

  1. should we add env instructions for ksh in addition to bash and csh???

  2. Wrappers configurations file need to update the README in the code to account for the
    addition of the logging config file

4) chapter 2 sample data instructions need to be updated to reflect the actual names and
the individual tar balls that comprise the sample data

5) 2.9 running METplus wrappers remove the text about adding to the [config] header
because we are creating an empty file and this doesn’t exist. Explicitly recommend copy
and paste the following text below…

  1. put a note/warning that on some systems, may need to replace the // with # for
    comments in the config file whenever you observe parsing error message that
    corresponds to the lines where the comments reside.

6b) Search all METplus .conf files in the repo and replace '//' comments with '#' and fix docs in METplus User's Guide 2.1 section 2.9.

7) page 23 before section 2.9 “...with <path/to> with …” should be reworded…

  1. bottom of page 21 in e.g. box for csh instructions for set path, missing }???

  2. In METplus/parm/README file references either 2 or 3 directories... but that count is not accurate. When possible, remove specific number to avoid having to keep them accurate.

10) We need to clarify that in order to run the Cyclone example use case, you first need to download that input data. We need to remind users that they need to sample data needed for each use case.

  1. Rob Darvell alerted use that he also gets mpi warnings from the produtil code. Would be great in the refactor of produtil (2 to 3) to get rid of these warnings!

12) Point Stat section number far off to the right (pg 37)- wrong space char??

13) Section 3.14 VAR_LIS and STAT_LIS don’t have section numbers associated with them

14) 3.18.2 remove text following the Configuration header

  1. Master_metplus.py still has ToDo’s that should be removed and become GitHub issues

  2. Remove the point stat documentation odt and pdf from the repository

17) Chapter 4 VALID_INCREMENT change wording from “at 6 hour increments” to “in 6 hour increments” and search for this text pattern throughout and make any necessary replacements

18) pg 52 provide more explanation of the example, replace “forecast least list” with “forecast lead list”

  1. pg 57 Chapter 4 Refer to MET user’s manual chapter x for a description of the grib_level, and other “extras”

  2. pg 60 provide more explanation for the fifth file in the example

21) Chapter 4 page 61 sample tarball files names need to be updated

22) Promote 4.6 to any section before the A-Z glossary

23)Change the A-Z glossary to Appendix

@bikegeek bikegeek added the component: documentation Documentation issue label Jun 5, 2019
@bikegeek bikegeek added this to the METplus-3.0 Release milestone Jun 5, 2019
@JohnHalleyGotway JohnHalleyGotway added priority: medium Medium Priority type: task An actionable item of work labels Jun 5, 2019
@DanielAdriaansen
Copy link
Contributor

DanielAdriaansen commented Jun 24, 2019

@bikegeek @JohnHalleyGotway is this list a list of "must-do's", or are these open for discussion among the team? For example, number 23 can easily be accomplished but I don't want to just blindly make all these changes. How do we go about agreeing which to do and which not to do?

@JohnHalleyGotway
Copy link
Collaborator

We met with Rob during his visit and reviewed his feedback about the documentation when writing up this issue. I'd proceed with doing all of them unless you come across a good reason not to.

For example, #2 may be a bad idea since it's seldom a good idea to list duplicate info. Maybe instead of listing all conventions, just specify the one we're using and alert users that they may need to modify based on their shell. That being said, bash commands are probably the most widely used. And I think bash and ksh commands are identical.

@georgemccabe
Copy link
Collaborator

georgemccabe commented Jun 24, 2019 via email

@DanielAdriaansen
Copy link
Contributor

DanielAdriaansen commented Jun 24, 2019

OK thanks for the feedback everyone. I have made a first pass through these and any item that is in BOLD is complete (pushed to develop). Items in BOLD/ITALIC are partially complete. Other items are probably better suited for a developer to complete. Please find my summary/questions of each remaining/partial issue below:

Item 2. Developer should complete
Item 3. It is not clear what he means to me
Items 6/6b. Developer should complete
Item 8. Developer should complete to ensure correct bracket is used
Item 9. This file needs to be completely updated- should we create a new github issue?
Item 11. Developer should address
Item 15. Developer should complete
Item 16. Does he mean the two files parm/use_cases/grid_to_obs/README_grid_to_obs.pdf and parm/use_cases/grid_to_obs/README_grid_to_obs.odt? I was unsure.
Item 18. Can a developer provide more information on this example based on how it works?
Item 19. Developer should complete
Item 20. Author of example/developer should expand
Item 21. I think this is the same as number 10 in his list, which I fixed but can someone confirm?
Item 23. Lyx expert should complete. I attempted changing the AZ-glossary to an appendix and completely ruined my Lyx files and had to start over. Maybe @JohnHalleyGotway or someone on MET knows how to quickly change a section/sub-section to appendix?

Tagging Minna/Jim/George for developer related items
@bikegeek @jimfrimel @georgemccabe

@j-opatz
Copy link
Contributor

j-opatz commented Jun 8, 2020

Confirmed that updates were completed with newer METplus releases, remaining issues not covered were completed in addition to list in #442.

@j-opatz j-opatz closed this as completed Jun 8, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
component: documentation Documentation issue priority: medium Medium Priority type: task An actionable item of work
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

6 participants