[WIP]: Fix so that the "rel:<namelist_var>" option can be used for input_pathname in namelist definition files #4739
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Fix the relative path option for input_pathname in namelist definition files. This now allows using a "rel:" prefix for it.
The usage is to use that prefix in front of a namelist variable name that will be used as the relative path for the pathname of the file.
So for example (if rundir is added to the namelist definiton file to be from the XML variable RUNDIR), you can do something like:
Which will then prepend the filename for that variable with the RUNDIR directory, and also add it to the relevant .input_data_list file so that filename will be checked for existence.
Test suite: So far only tested a single case with a CMEPS PR that includes a namelist item with a rel: option for input_pathname
Test baseline:
Test namelist changes:
Test status: bit for bit
Fixes #4738
User interface changes?: No
Update gh-pages html (Y/N)?: No
I do plan on doing more testing, so I'll report more on what I do later. But I will also note that this is pretty isolated, so unlikely to cause problems. And it's only loosening a XSD check so can't cause problems with existing things that work. I would like to add some type of test that would catch this type of problem, but I haven't figured out how to do that yet. So I'd love to hear suggestions on that.