feature #1402 config cleanup - met_tool_wrapper

[georgemccabe]

Another PR will follow for the model_applications conf files. I want to confirm that everything is good here before moving onto those use cases.

Pull Request Testing

• Describe testing already performed for these changes:
  

Ran all use cases and diff tests

• Recommend testing for the reviewer(s) to perform, including the location of input datasets, and any additional instructions:
  

Review changes for consistency, copy/paste mistakes, etc.
Confirm format used for all conf files is acceptable
Ensure all automated tests pass

• Do these changes include sufficient documentation updates, ensuring that no errors or warnings exist in the build of the documentation? [Yes]

• Do these changes include sufficient testing updates? [Yes]

• Will this PR result in changes to the test suite? [No]
  

• Please complete this pull request review by 7/13/2022.
  

Pull Request Checklist

See the METplus Workflow for details.

• Add any new Python packages to the METplus Components Python Requirements table.
• Review the source issue metadata (required labels, projects, and milestone).
• Complete the PR definition above.
• Ensure the PR title matches the feature or bugfix branch name.
• Define the PR metadata, as permissions allow.
  Select: Reviewer(s)
  Select: Organization level software support Project or Repository level development cycle Project
  Select: Milestone as the version that will include these changes
• After submitting the PR, select Linked issues with the original issue number.
• After the PR is approved, merge your changes. If permissions do not allow this, request that the reviewer do the merge.
• Close the linked issue and delete your feature or bugfix branch from GitHub.

[j-opatz]

It looks like a few of the automated testings failed: I'm not too concerned with the model application ones, since I believe that's related to a separate reorganization, but the met_tool_wrapper group 30-58 failed. It has some debug messages of "removing symbolic link", but I think the actual error is from the METdbLoad section. Can this be explained? If so, I have reviewed this PR and didn't find anything moved or printed in error so it's ready to be merged.

[georgemccabe]

@j-opatz, Yes, the failures in the tests are due to the s2s use cases using up all of the disk space. It appears to cause random other groups to fail because I have rerun them before and they ran fine. The met_tool_wrapper failure is due to the sql definition fine used to set up METviewer was moved from that repo into METdatadb (now METdataio). Pull request #1697 will resolve those issues.