Clean up use case documentation files

[georgemccabe]

There are a handful of text that are identical in every use case doc file that should be cleaned up and improved in across the board.

One example is the way we word the "Running METplus" section requires us to modify the name of the new config 4 times. We also have discussed improving how we show how METplus config variables correspond to MET config variables (#402).

Describe the Task

We should clean up the information in these files so it is easier to create a new use case. Things to consider:

• If there is text that is the same in every file, consider if that text belongs in another file instead and linked to. If it does make sense in these files, consider pulling it out into an RST file and including it so it can be edited in one place.
• Reduce the number of times a config file path needs to be updated for a new use case. This is a tedious part of the process of adding a new use case.
• Improve documentation on mapping METplus configuration items to MET config file env vars #402
• For example, "See the 'User Defined Config' section on the 'System Configuration' page of the METplus User's Guide for more information.", consider consider linking the user to this section directly. The instructions for doing this are listed under the Internal Links in the Documentation section of the Documentation Overview and Conventions section of the Contributor's Guide.
• Add a period to this sentence "This must be in a location where you have write permissions"
• Add a period to this sentence "This is not required to run METplus, but it is required to run the examples in parm/use_cases"
• add more here

Time Estimate

3+ days

Sub-Issues

Consider breaking the task down into sub-issues.

• Improve documentation on mapping METplus configuration items to MET config file env vars #402
• add more here

Relevant Deadlines

None

Funding Source

None

Define the Metadata

Assignee

• Select engineer(s) or no engineer required
• Select scientist(s) or no scientist required

Labels

• Select component(s)
• Select priority
• Select requestor(s)

Projects and Milestone

• Review projects and select relevant Repository and Organization ones or add "alert:NEED PROJECT ASSIGNMENT" label
• Select milestone to next major version milestone or "Future Versions"

Define Related Issue(s)

Consider the impact to the other METplus components.

• METplus, MET, METdatadb, METviewer, METexpress, METcalcpy, METplotpy

Task Checklist

See the METplus Workflow for details.

• Complete the issue definition above, including the Time Estimate and Funding Source.
• Fork this repository or create a branch of develop.
  Branch name: feature_<Issue Number>_<Description>
• Complete the development and test your changes.
• Add/update log messages for easier debugging.
• Add/update unit tests.
• Add/update documentation.
• Push local changes to GitHub.
• Submit a pull request to merge into develop.
  Pull request: feature <Issue Number> <Description>
• Define the pull request metadata, as permissions allow.
  Select: Reviewer(s), Project(s), Milestone, and Linked issues
• Iterate until the reviewer(s) accept and merge your changes.
• Delete your fork or branch.
• Close this issue.

[georgemccabe]

From PR #882, we found a few minor edits to apply to the repeated content for each use case. To avoid redundancy, we could move the common content to another file to reference in each use case doc.

Suggested changes:

Change (Click here to see the METplus releases):

# | **Location:** All of the input data required for this use case can be found in the met_test sample data tarball. Click here to the METplus releases page and download sample data for the appropriate release: https://github.com/dtcenter/METplus/releases

to

# | **Location:** All of the input data required for this use case can be found in the met_test sample data tarball. Click here to see the METplus releases page and download sample data for the appropriate release: https://github.com/dtcenter/METplus/releases

Change (parm/metplus_config, then to parm/metplus_config and then):

# 2) Modifying the configurations in parm/metplus_config, then passing in METdbLoad.conf::

to

# 2) Modifying the configurations in parm/metplus_config and then passing in METdbLoad.conf::

Change (Path where METplus to Path to directory where METplus):

# * **OUTPUT_BASE** - Path where METplus output will be written. This must be in a location where you have write permissions

to

# * **OUTPUT_BASE** - Path to directory where METplus output will be written. This must be in a location where you have write permissions

[jprestop]

@georgemccabe I see a note above that says "georgemccabe linked a pull request on May 6, 2021 that will close this issue", but I see that this issue is still Open. Should it be closed?

[georgemccabe]

@jprestop, no, I don't think that PR completes this work. I think that note was generated because the PR was linked to this issue under "Development."

This issue seems related to #918, which @j-opatz is working on. John, could you refer to this issue to ensure that the changes mentioned here are covered in the use case doc template work?

[jprestop]

Thanks for the clarification @georgemccabe. I've been trying to help go through issues with @lisagoodrich to help her find things to work on.