WW3 2dm File Format

[aronroland]

Pull Request Summary

Add alternative File Format for the use of WW3 by ERDC. This is the native SMS format called *.2dm.

Description

Beside the new format, active boundary and Neuman type boundary conditions can be prescribed in the meshbnd.2dm file. The file name is yet default.

Please also include the following information:

• Add any suggestions for a reviewer
  none
• Mention any labels that should be added:
  new feature
• Are answer changes expected from this PR?
  None, but a new regression test was designed. Needs to be discussed.
  -->

Issue(s) addressed

none

Commit Message

Add 2dm file format for unstructured grids.

Check list

• Branch is up to date with the authoritative repository (NOAA-EMC) develop branch.
• Checked the checklist for a developer submitting to develop.
• [] If a version number update is required, checked the updating version number checklist.
• If a new feature was added, a regression test for testing the new feature is added.
  Will be discussed these days

Testing

• How were these changes tested?
  In a new regtest based on tp2.6.
• Are the changes covered by regression tests? (If not, why? Do new tests need to be added?)
  Yes, see above.
• Have the matrix regression tests been run (if yes, please note HPC and compiler)?
  No
• Please indicate the expected changes in the regression test output, (Note the list of known non-identical tests.)
  None expected.
• Please provide the summary output of matrix.comp (matrix.Diff.txt, matrixCompFull.txt and matrixCompSummary.txt):
  Will be done ...

[JessicaMeixner-NOAA]

@aronroland since this is from the ERDC fork, we are expecting regression test information before we start review and testing on this PR. I did notice that you have deleted the ufs1.2 regression test. Was this intentional? I don't see any mention of it in the PR description.

[aronroland]

for sure not by purpose i did actually nothing on the regtests ... hmmm strange ....--Sent from my Android phone with GMX Mail. Please excuse my brevity.On 12/19/23, 2:31 PM Jessica Meixner ***@***.***> wrote: @aronroland since this is from the ERDC fork, we are expecting regression test information before we start review and testing on this PR. I did notice that you have deleted the ufs1.2 regression test. Was this intentional? I don't see any mention of it in the PR description. —Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[JessicaMeixner-NOAA]

@aronroland no worries, we'll just want to make sure that regression test is added back before we proceed with this PR.

[JessicaMeixner-NOAA]

Converting to draft. Please mark as ready for review after testing information is available.