Lfric macros jules meta

[James Bruten (james-bruten-mo)]

PR Summary

Sci/Tech Reviewer: Pierre Siddall (@Pierre-siddall)
Code Reviewer: Sam Clarke-Green (@t00sa)

This makes changes to the apply_macros and release_new_version scripts to account for lfric-jules metadata now being in the Jules repository.

• linked MetOffice/lfric_app#463
• linked MetOffice/jules#110

Code Quality Checklist

• I have performed a self-review of my own code
• My code follows the project's style guidelines
• Comments have been included that aid understanding and enhance the readability of the code
• My changes generate no new warnings
• All automated checks in the CI pipeline have completed successfully

Testing

• This change has been tested appropriately (please describe)

Security Considerations

• I have reviewed my changes for potential security issues
• Sensitive data is properly handled (if applicable)
• Authentication and authorisation are properly implemented (if applicable)

AI Assistance and Attribution

• Some of the content of this change has been produced with the assistance of Generative AI tool name (e.g., Met Office Github Copilot Enterprise, Github Copilot Personal, ChatGPT GPT-4, etc) and I have followed the Simulation Systems AI policy (including attribution labels)

Sci/Tech Review

• I understand this area of code and the changes being added
• The proposed changes correspond to the pull request description
• Documentation is sufficient (do documentation papers need updating)
• Sufficient testing has been completed

(Please alert the code reviewer via a tag when you have approved the SR)

Code Review

• All dependencies have been resolved
• Related Issues have been properly linked and addressed
• Code quality standards have been met
• Tests are adequate and have passed
• Security considerations have been addressed
• Performance impact is acceptable

[Pierre Siddall (Pierre-siddall)]

Thanks James Bruten (@james-bruten-mo), semantically this looks really good, I just have a couple of trivial edits with arguments to help clarify information that is being passed via a function or the command line. Let me know if there's anything I can help clarify.

[Pierre Siddall (Pierre-siddall)]

I reckon it would be good to differentiate between the parameters here as it makes it clearer what data is being operated on when the function is called.

Suggested change

	"vn0.0_t001", None, None, TEST_APPS_DIR, Path("/tmp"), Path("/tmp"), True
	"vn0.0_t001", None, None, apps=TEST_APPS_DIR, core=Path("/tmp"), jules=Path("/tmp"), testing=True

[Pierre Siddall (Pierre-siddall)]

It could be easy to get a bit confused with apps and core being references to paths. So adding version here may help users of the script know what is expected in the argument.

Suggested change

	"--jules",
	"--jules_version",