Update GSI-Monitor submodule hash to 72aee63

[EdwardSafford-NOAA]

Description

This PR updates the dev/gfs.v17 branch to pick up the latest version of GSI-monitor, at hash 72aee63, after the merger of GSI_monitor PR #206.

This change removed an old and unused executable from GSI-monitor, source code for which contained several goto statements as documented in bugzilla #216 and GFS issue NOAA-EMC/GFS#19.

Other file changes are updates to remove unused variables from source code and change in variable use in several driver scripts. These are old testing scripts that are not used by global_workflow.

Type of change

• Bug fix (fixes something broken)
• New feature (adds functionality)
• Maintenance (code refactor, clean-up, new CI test, etc.)

Change characteristics

• Is this change expected to change outputs (e.g. value changes to existing outputs, new files stored in COM, files removed from COM, filename changes, additions/subtractions to archives)? NO (If YES, please indicate to which system(s))
  • GFS
  • GEFS
  • SFS
  • GCAFS
• Is this a breaking change (a change in existing functionality)? NO
• Does this change require a documentation update? NO
• Does this change require an update to any of the following submodules? NO (If YES, please add a link to any PRs that are pending.)
  • EMC verif-global
  • GDAS
  • GFS-utils
  • GSI
  • GSI-monitor
  • GSI-utils
  • UFS-utils
  • UFS-weather-model
  • wxflow

How has this been tested?

• GSI_monitor was rebuilt on wcoss2
• GSI_monitor was tested running on wcoss2 for 5 days using operational data. No problems were encountered.
• Note that the removed executable was used only by GSI_monitor and for image generation, not data extraction. Global-workflow only uses the data extraction portions of GSI-monitor and image generation is done downstream of global_workflow. Additional code changes are removal of unused variables and related changes to remove debug compiler warnings.

Checklist

• Any dependent changes have been merged and published
• My code follows the style guidelines of this project
• I have performed a self-review of my own code
• I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
• I have documented my code, including function, input, and output descriptions
• My changes generate no new warnings
• New and existing tests pass with my changes
• This change is covered by an existing CI test or a new one has been added
• Any new scripts have been added to the .github/CODEOWNERS file with owners
• I have made corresponding changes to the system documentation if necessary

[CatherineThomas-NOAA]

Thanks for putting this PR together @EdwardSafford-NOAA. We unfortunately are not going to be pulling in the HOMEgfs to HOMEglobal changes to the dev/gfs.v17 branch for all of the subrepos. I think this means that we're going to have to make a production branch and point to that branch instead of a hash of develop like we have been doing. The other commits all look fine to me, it's just commit 0040687 that's the problem.

@DavidHuber-NOAA - Can you confirm that this is the plan for HOMEgfs in the dev/gfs.v17 branch?

[EdwardSafford-NOAA]

@CatherineThomas-NOAA I think I can safely remove all of those driver scripts and thereby eliminate the conflict. I think the HOMEgfs to HOMEglobal changes are only within the driver scripts. Back story -- those drivers were self-test mechanisms that were made redundant by moving the extraction jobs over to global_workflow. I'll have some time today to confirm that finding and I'll remove them if things are as I think they are.

[DavidHuber-NOAA]

@CatherineThomas-NOAA yes, we decided to stick with HOMEgfs for the GFS v17.

[CatherineThomas-NOAA]

Thanks for confirming @DavidHuber-NOAA.

That sounds like an easy solution if possible @EdwardSafford-NOAA. It would be convenient to not have to branch off. Let me know if you need me to test anything on my end.

[EdwardSafford-NOAA]

@CatherineThomas-NOAA I've moved the GSI-monitor to #207 (hash to latest develop is 2d0b5ee). Is it possible for you to test this version in your parallel?

[CatherineThomas-NOAA]

Thanks @EdwardSafford-NOAA! Yes I can run a low resolution test. I can test the update to the GSI hash with it. How many cycles do you need to see if it's working properly?

[EdwardSafford-NOAA]

@CatherineThomas-NOAA excellent, thanks! Two cycles should be sufficient -- if there's a problem it will not be subtle.