Prefer the "shr_" prefix naming convention for the cesm/nuopc_cap_share directory

[ekluzek]

In discussion we decided that the "shr_" prefix should be the main default for files in the cesm/nuopc_cap_share directory.

The question was:
The files in the cesm/nuopc_cap_share directory have different prefixes used that doesn't make it obvious where these files are coming from. It would be good to name them consistently such that it's obvious where they are coming from. The "shr_" prefix used by many in the directory comes from when these files were part of csm_share, and when I look at the prefix that's where I think they come from.

Prefixes currently being used include:

driver_
glc_
seq_
shr_
esm_
nuopc_shr

seq_ comes from when the sequential driver was separate from the concurrent one. But, now they are combined so that's not good. glc_ lets us know this is for the Glacier model -- but then it's unclear as to why it's here and not under CISM? driver_ and esm_ are perhaps OK, but still not clear that these are part of CMEPS.

[ekluzek]

I think I vote for nuopc_shr being the clearest. It would take coordination between multiple components to change the naming convention, so I'm not sure if it's worth it. But, maybe we can at least agree on a convention to use for new things that come into this directory?

[billsacks]

You raise a good point, @ekluzek , and I agree that it would be best to have some consistency here. These files are weird in that they are built as part of the CESM_share library (because they are needed by multiple componentsn; see https://github.com/escomp/CESM_share/blob/main/buildlib.csm_share#L58-L61) but are part of the CMEPS repository (presumably because they are most closely related to code in CMEPS). I see your argument for nuopc_shr, but I can also see an argument for just shr so that components don't need to worry about whether a given module in the share library is being pulled in from CESM_share or CMEPS (which would also make it easier to migrate all of these to CESM_share in the future if that feels like a cleaner organization).

glc_elevclass_mod is used by CMEPS as well as one or more components, which is why it is in share code rather than CISM.

[mvertens]

@ekluzek - @billsacks is correct in his summary. I also agree with the proposal that @billacks has given to that all the files should just have a simple shr_ prefix. That actually also requires the minimum number of changes to the file names.

[ekluzek]

@fvitt also agrees with the shr_ prefix, so I've modified this issue to say that's the preference to be used going forward. We could also have an issue to change files in the directory to mostly use that prefix, but that would take coordination across components.