Handle bias correction files for aerosol DA

[ypwang19]

Description

This PR is to stage and tar bias correction files for aerosol DA in the workflow.
This PR depends on #3711. (The file is staged and passed aerosol cycling DA CI test)

Resolves #3172
Refs (NOAA-EMC/GDASApp#1690)

Type of change

• New feature (adds functionality)

Change characteristics

• 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? YES (If YES, please add a link to any PRs that are pending.)
  • GDAS

How has this been tested?

• Cycled test on Hera

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

[aerorahul]

lgtm

[aerorahul]

The PR description says there is an update required to GDASapp submodule, but I don't see it in the list of changes.
I want to confirm that the description is accurate and we are waiting for an updated gdasapp hash in this PR.

[CoryMartin-NOAA]

Most importantly we need the bias correction dummy files staged

[aerorahul]

Ok. I will revert this to draft then.

[CoryMartin-NOAA]

@aerorahul for future reference, can you provide criteria for what constitutes a draft PR vs an open PR? My impression (which perhaps is not the same as yours) is that draft means the changes herein are not ready for review, not that it is waiting on something like a hash update or staging a fix file.

[aerorahul]

I was about to merge this PR, because the changes were approved. I did not realize that this PR needs other changes to be made or staged or communicated. None of that is communicated in this PR or its issue. At the very least, a link to the issue that is blocking this PR should be made. Barring all of this, makes this PR not ready -- hence a draft.

[aerorahul]

I do agree, GitHub's PR state is bi-modal (Ready or Draft). I suppose our need is to have a mention of review this PR, and its companion PR(s).

[CoryMartin-NOAA]

The linked issue is here in the PR. I'll admit that the title could be clearer but it is here and @KateFriedman-NOAA has been communicating with @ypwang19 on what is needed to get these staged.

[CoryMartin-NOAA]

@aerorahul I would suggest some sort of label policy like "needs fix file" or "ready for CI" or "ready to merge"

[aerorahul]

One can mention anything in the long list of comments, it is extremely difficult to sift out meaningful information from comments if the PR description is not clear. What this does, what its waiting on, etc.

[aerorahul]

@CoryMartin-NOAA
I created a label "needs fix file" and applied it here. I also added a label description to remind users to put the fix file issue number in the PR description.

[CoryMartin-NOAA]

@aerorahul sounds good, I hope this will be helpful in the future

[aerorahul]

Is there anything we can help with to move this PR along?

[CoryMartin-NOAA]

@aerorahul @ypwang19 has been on leave. I think once she merges in my proposed fix, it will be ready for testing

[CoryMartin-NOAA]

whoops, @ypwang19 please revert that PR. I made a mistake and kept pushing to that branch

[ypwang19]

It should work now. Please test it. @aerorahul

[DavidHuber-NOAA]

Changes look good.