Feature 642 distance map tb

[CPKalb]

Pull Request Testing

• Describe testing already performed for these changes:
  
  The cases were run and the output was verified to be identical to the original script

• Recommend testing for the reviewer(s) to perform, including the location of input datasets, and any additional instructions:
  
  Run the case to be sure it works and compare netcdf distance maps output to original

• Do these changes include sufficient documentation and testing updates? [Yes or No]
  Yes

• Will this PR result in changes to the test suite? [Yes or No]
  
  If yes, describe the new output and/or changes to the existing output:
  
  Yes, there will be new output data for the new cases

Pull Request Checklist

See the METplus Workflow for details.

• 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), Project(s), and Milestone
• 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.

[georgemccabe]

There are a few things that should be updated. See the notes on the files.

[georgemccabe]

@CPKalb could you please fill out the template for reviewing this pull request?

[CPKalb]

What is the test suite?

[georgemccabe]

What is the test suite?

The automated tests run in GitHub Actions. This PR will change the output because there will be new output data from the new cases.

[georgemccabe]

An update on this review: I looked over the changes and they look good. Both cases ran properly on kiowa. The use cases have their own MET config file, which we are moving away from in favor of using GRID_STAT_MET_CONFIG_OVERRIDES and MODE_MET_CONFIG_OVERRIDES. I made some changes to do this, however there are changed in #768 that will be needed to switch to the new format for MODE because grid_res is set in this case and that needs to be set via a METplus config. Once the changes for #768 are merged into develop, I can test that the MODE case runs as expected and approve this PR.

[CPKalb]

Okay. I believe that grid_res was set, as well as some of the mode specific parameters in the function to identify objects. Let me know if there is anything I can do to help.

[georgemccabe]

I made the updates to the config files but 1 of the cases failed due to a typo. It is re-running now. If all of the jobs succeed in the push run for this branch, then I will approve this PR. The pull request run will have differences because there is new data and the names of one of the use case groups changed (from 6+ to 6).

Push run:
https://github.com/dtcenter/METplus/actions/runs/641300331

Pull request run:
https://github.com/dtcenter/METplus/actions/runs/641300429

[georgemccabe]

Update: I confirmed that the new use cases run successfully. I am updating the logic for running the use case tests so that it will be easier to see that the only change to the test output is the addition of new data from this use case. I will apply those changes to this branch and approve.

[georgemccabe]

Approving this PR and creating a new one from branch feature_642_test_ci_updates for the changes to GitHub Actions