Rename and reorganise lfric2lfric tasks

[cjohnson-pi]

PR Summary

Reorganise the lfric2lfric testsuite (removing the redundant tests and moving some to the extra group).
Rename the lfric2lfric task names to the format regrid_method-source-destination - for easier comparison (especially to prepare for new tasks to be added in the future).

Sci/Tech Reviewer: Lottie Turner (@mo-lottieturner)
Code Reviewer: Harry Shepherd (@harry-shepherd)

Task name	Regrid method	cpu	source	destination	iodef	Keep	Rename?	Group
ral_seuk-C32_lam_MG_1cpu	map	1	seuk dynamics	seuk multigrid_l1	iodef_ral	N
ral_seuk-C32_lam_MG_4cpu	map	4	seuk dynamics	seuk multigrid_l1	iodef_ral	Y	map_seuk_dyn_to_seuk_l1_ral	developer
oasis_ral_seuk-C32_lam_MG_1cpu	oasis	1	seuk_dynamics	seuk multigrid_l1	iodef_ral	N
oasis_ral_seuk-C32_lam_MG_4cpu	oasis	4	seuk_dynamics	seuk multigrid_l1	iodef_ral	Y	oasis_seuk_dyn_to_seuk_l1_ral	developer
ral3-seuk	map	1	seuk dynamics	seuk multigrid_l1	iodef_ral3	Y	map_seuk_dyn_to_seuk_l1_ral3_1cpu	extra
ral3-uk	map	1	seuk dynamics	seuk multigrid_l1	iodef_ral3	N
ral3-ukv	map	1	seuk dynamics	seuk multigrid_l1	iodef_ral3	N
clim_gal9-C24_C12_1cpu	map	1	C24	C12	iodef	N
clim_gal9-C24_C12_6cpu	map	6	C24	C12	iodef	Y	map_C24_to_C12	developer
oasis_clim_gal9-C24_C12_1cpu	oasis	1	C24	C12	iodef	N
oasis_clim_gal9-C24_C12_6cpu	oasis	6	C24	C12	iodef	Y	oasis_C24_to_C12	extra
oasis_clim_gal9_C12-ral_seuk_C16_lam_1cpu	oasis	1	C12	seuk dynamics	iodef	Y	oasis_C12_to_seuk_1cpu	developer
oasis_clim_gal9_C12-ral_seuk_C16_lam_4cpu	oasis	4	C12	seuk dynamics	iodef	Y	oasis_C12_to_seuk	extra
oasis_clim_gal9_C12-ral_seuk_C16_lam-lbc_1cpu	oasis	1	C12	seuk dynamics-lbc	iodef	N
oasis_clim_gal9_C12-ral_seuk_C16_lam-lbc_4cpu	oasis	4	C12	seuk dynamics-lbc	iodef	Y	oasis_C12_to_seuk_lbc	developer

split from #530
blocked by #655

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

• I have tested this change locally, using the LFRic Apps rose-stem suite
• If any tests fail (rose-stem or CI) the reason is understood and acceptable (e.g. kgo changes)
• I have added tests to cover new functionality as appropriate (e.g. system tests, unit tests, etc.)
• Any new tests have been assigned an appropriate amount of compute resource and have been allocated to an appropriate testing group (i.e. the developer tests are for jobs which use a small amount of compute resource and complete in a matter of minutes)

trac.log

Test Suite Results - lfric_apps - rename_tasks/run3

Suite Information

Item	Value
Suite Name	rename_tasks/run3
Suite User	christine.johnson
Workflow Start	2026-07-24T14:47:20
Groups Run	suite_default

Dependency	Reference	Main Like
casim	MetOffice/casim@2026.07.1	True
jules	MetOffice/jules@2026.07.1	True
lfric_apps	cjohnson-pi/lfric_apps@rename_tasks	False
lfric_core	MetOffice/lfric_core@2026.07.1	True
moci	MetOffice/moci@2026.07.1	True
SimSys_Scripts	MetOffice/SimSys_Scripts@2026.07.1	True
socrates	MetOffice/socrates@2026.07.1	True
socrates-spectral	MetOffice/socrates-spectral@2026.07.1	True
ukca	MetOffice/ukca@2026.07.1	True

Task Information

✅ succeeded tasks - 1196

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)

Performance Impact

• Performance of the code has been considered and, if applicable, suitable performance measurements have been conducted

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)

Documentation

• Where appropriate I have updated documentation related to this change and confirmed that it builds correctly

PSyclone Approval

• If you have edited any PSyclone-related code (e.g. PSyKAl-lite, Kernel interface, optimisation scripts, LFRic data structure code) then please contact the TCD Team

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
• CLA compliance has been confirmed
• Code quality standards have been met
• Tests are adequate and have passed
• Documentation is complete and accurate
• Security considerations have been addressed
• Performance impact is acceptable

[github-actions]

⚠️ Hello cjohnson-pi!

Your CLA signature was found on the base branch, but you appear to have modified the CONTRIBUTORS.md file in this PR.

Please do not edit the CONTRIBUTORS.md file. If you have already signed the CLA, revert changes to the file and your signature will be picked up.

[Lottie Turner (mo-lottieturner)]

Hi Christine - thanks for the table, it's very useful. My main objection is that you're moving a lot of cpu-heavy jobs into developer because the cpu-light equivalent jobs have been removed - developer is run a lot as the default test suite so it's best that most cpu-heavy jobs stay in extra. When they were first added to the test suite I put the limitation that 2 multi-cpu jobs would be allowed in the developer group (preferentially 1, but 2 if there was a good argument for the second) - given that was only last release cycle, I'd rather we keep to that.

Also, if we could keep one of the non-oasis 1cpu jobs (one with a multi-cpu equivalent, so ral_seuk-C32_lam_MG_1cpu or clim_gal9-C24_C12_1cpu as-was) I think that would be useful.

For similar reason as my first point, no reason to move map_seuk_dyn_to_seuk_l1_ral3_1cpu to extra, that can stay in developer.

I'm not sure about removing the 4cpu/6cpu parts of the name - I know it's simpler, but I'm not sure that it isn't more helpful to keep them. Thoughts?

[cjohnson-pi]

Hi Christine - thanks for the table, it's very useful. My main objection is that you're moving a lot of cpu-heavy jobs into developer because the cpu-light equivalent jobs have been removed - developer is run a lot as the default test suite so it's best that most cpu-heavy jobs stay in extra. When they were first added to the test suite I put the limitation that 2 multi-cpu jobs would be allowed in the developer group (preferentially 1, but 2 if there was a good argument for the second) - given that was only last release cycle, I'd rather we keep to that.

Also, if we could keep one of the non-oasis 1cpu jobs (one with a multi-cpu equivalent, so ral_seuk-C32_lam_MG_1cpu or clim_gal9-C24_C12_1cpu as-was) I think that would be useful.

For similar reason as my first point, no reason to move map_seuk_dyn_to_seuk_l1_ral3_1cpu to extra, that can stay in developer.

I'm not sure about removing the 4cpu/6cpu parts of the name - I know it's simpler, but I'm not sure that it isn't more helpful to keep them. Thoughts?

Thanks for looking at this so quickly.

My thoughts...

I'm not sure that I would describe these jobs as particularly cpu-heavy. e.g. Compared to https://github.com/MetOffice/lfric_apps/blob/main/rose-stem/site/common/lfric_atm/tasks_lfric_atm.cylc where I think 6cpu might be the minimum. I think its important that we keep the multiple mpi jobs in developer to just make sure they keep working.

Yes I can add a non-oasis 1cpu job.

I keep comparing with the lfric_atm tasks (as thats what I'm used to I suppose). These don't have the computational details in the name (unless it is specifically a performance related job). I would prefer to keep the task names consistent - so that its easy to compare. And I don't think we want to be adding the number of mpi to all of the tasks. e.g. the c896 to ukv tasks. And then the following vertical interpolation tasks... What if you needed to change the number of mpi? The task would still be doing the same job. So you shouldn't need to have to change the task name too (unless its specifically designed for monitoring performance).