ctsm5.3.028: Move Izumi intel and gnu tests to Derecho

[samsrabin]

Description of changes

Moves Izumi intel and gnu tests to Derecho.

Notes to reviewer(s)

• I used two Python scripts for this, which I have put in a new top-level tmp/ directory. This directory will be deleted before merging, but I wanted to show my work.
• The first Python script, tmp/remove_testlist_whitespace.py, rewrote testlist_clm.xml with extraneous whitespace removed. This would an inevitable result of using Python to parse, edit, and rewrite testlist_clm.xml, so I did it in one separate step that got its own commit. However, the result is that it looks like there are many more diffs in testlist_clm.xml than there really are. Make sure to ignore whitespace in your review to simplify things.
• I then did a find-and-replace to change all Izumi intel and gnu tests to Derecho, except for the FUNIT test.
• The second Python script, tmp/remove_duplicate_tests.py, removed duplicate tests resulting from the Izumi-to-Derecho change.

Specific notes

Contributors other than yourself, if any: None

CTSM Issues Fixed:

• Resolves Move non-nag Izumi tests to Derecho #2974

Are answers expected to change (and if so in what way)? No. However, a bunch of tests will be moved from Izumi to Derecho.

Any User Interface Changes (namelist or namelist defaults changes)? No

Does this create a need to change or add documentation? Did you do so? No

Testing performed, if any: None so far

[samsrabin]

Those two Python scripts could actually be used in a GitHub workflow to check that testlist_clm.xml is well-formed... Will play with this but won't let it hold up this PR. @ekluzek

[ekluzek]

I verified that the new testlist only has izumi_nag. And the changes all make sense to me. Some things I hadn't thought about you also brought in which makes sense. This will make the test list on Derecho, slightly longer, but that's fine.

I also think that the tools you made should become more mainstream. The tmp directory makes me think you were going to delete them. But, I don't think you should. We should do more of using tools like this. If they do become more mainstream, I'd like to see more testing for them, and probably a library level that removes some code duplication.

But, I think you bring this in like it is.

[ekluzek]

Putting this in a tmp directory makes it sound like this is a one time thing to do. But, when thinking about it -- we probably ought to keep this around, and run it periodically. Maybe even have a github action for it.

Having some tools that check the testlists and make sure they are valid is really good thing to have. Having more tools around this would be really good. This is moving us towards automation and tools doing work for us, which is a really powerful thing to move towards.

[samsrabin]

Thanks! For now I've moved them into a new directory, tools/contrib/testlist_checks/.

• File an issue to convert these to GitHub Workflows.