Feature/rmax fill nosmooth

[WPringle]

Adding feature regression_penny_2023_no_smoothing for using Penny et al (2023) RMW filling without the 24-hr moving mean smoother function.

Moving the smoothing to a function for added clarity to the code.

[SorooshMani-NOAA]

@WPringle based on your changes the our original regression method did not have smoothing (while Andy's method did?), right? I know we ideally want regression_penny_2023 to be exactly equal to what Andy's paper had and we also want to try the version without smoothing (which is what we actually did)

But my concern is changing the meaning of already implemented method just causes more confusion in the future. I suggest keeping the old no-smooth method name regeression_penny_2023, and let regression_penny_2023_no_smoothing also be equal to that, and then also add a third method regression_penny_2023_with_smoothing. This way for regression_penny_2023 we can send deprecation warnings, and the user should basically choose between regression_penny_2023_with_smoothing vs regression_penny_2023_no_smoothing.

[WPringle]

@SorooshMani-NOAA No, we always had the smoothing. This option is to turn it off, so it will be slightly different to Penny et al (2023)

[SorooshMani-NOAA]

Oh, yeah sorry, I misread the diff!!! Thanks for the update! Sorry for the confusion

[SorooshMani-NOAA]

So, when the tests pass I can merge it, thanks

[WPringle]

Thanks @SorooshMani-NOAA. I think your comments still have some validity, like could add regression_penny_2023_with_smoothing as an option for clarity, that is equal to the one without specifying smoothing. What do you think?

[SorooshMani-NOAA]

Yeah, I agree, it helps clarify things a bit.

[SorooshMani-NOAA]

@WPringle you don't need to define a new number, you can just make sure both enum names are the same, e.g.:

In [1]: import enum

In [2]: class E(enum.Enum):
   ...:     a = enum.auto()
   ...:     b = enum.auto()
   ...:     c = b
   ...:     d = enum.auto()
   ...:

In [3]: E
Out[3]: <enum 'E'>

In [4]: E.a
Out[4]: <E.a: 1>

In [5]: E.b
Out[5]: <E.b: 2>

In [6]: E.c
Out[6]: <E.b: 2>

In [7]: E.d
Out[7]: <E.d: 3>

[SorooshMani-NOAA]

actually in this case we probably have to set penny_regression_2023 = penny_regression_2023_with_smoothing rather than the other way around, but I think it's still a good idea to keep the resulting enum value the same.

[WPringle]

I was wondering about that, so you can just set c=b as you did in that class ok.

[SorooshMani-NOAA]

@WPringle please let me know when this PR is ready to merge so that we can discuss if any test fails without any apparent reason, thanks!

[WPringle]

@SorooshMani-NOAA Yes, it should be ready to merge.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 91.76%. Comparing base (bcb1948) to head (c6ca722).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #114      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   91.71%   91.76%   +0.05%     
==========================================
  Files          19       19              
  Lines        2087     2100      +13     
==========================================
+ Hits         1914     1927      +13     
  Misses        173      173              

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.