Write settings.yml parameters in original order

[enekomartinmartinez]

Description

Small fix to write settings.yml without sorting the keys. This preserves the original order of the parameters as they were given in the recipe, keeps the order given by the user. It also will add all the ESMValTool written parameters at the end so the block can be easily identified, see the settings from an example I ran:

c_my_argument1: whatever
a_my_argument2: null
z_my_argument3:
  c: 1
  b: 2
  a: 3
b_my_argument3: null
recipe: recipe_test_settings.yml
version: 2.10.0
script: test_settings_1
run_dir: /esarchive/scratch/emarti1/my-esmvaltool/testing/recipe_test_settings_20240227_140542/run/test_settings_diag/test_settings_1
plot_dir: /esarchive/scratch/emarti1/my-esmvaltool/testing/recipe_test_settings_20240227_140542/plots/test_settings_diag/test_settings_1
work_dir: /esarchive/scratch/emarti1/my-esmvaltool/testing/recipe_test_settings_20240227_140542/work/test_settings_diag/test_settings_1
output_file_type: png
log_level: debug
auxiliary_data_dir: /esarchive/scratch/emarti1/my-esmvaltool/auxiliary_data
input_files:
- /esarchive/scratch/emarti1/my-esmvaltool/testing/recipe_test_settings_20240227_140542/preproc/test_settings_diag/psl/metadata.yml

Closes #2339

Link to documentation:

---

Before you get started

• ☝ Create an issue to discuss what you are going to do

Checklist

It is the responsibility of the author to make sure the pull request is ready to review. The icons indicate whether the item will be subject to the 🛠 Technical or 🧪 Scientific review.

• 🧪 The new functionality is relevant and scientifically sound
• 🛠 This pull request has a descriptive title and labels
• 🛠 Code is written according to the code quality guidelines
• 🛠 Unit tests have been added
• 🛠 Changes are backward compatible
• 🛠 The list of authors is up to date
• 🛠 All checks below this pull request were successful

---

To help with the number pull requests:

• 🙏 We kindly ask you to review two other open pull requests in this repository

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 94.69%. Comparing base (5cdc3c2) to head (3cf5578).
Report is 49 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2352      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   94.62%   94.69%   +0.07%     
==========================================
  Files         247      247              
  Lines       14065    14065              
==========================================
+ Hits        13309    13319      +10     
+ Misses        756      746      -10     

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

[bouweandela]

Thanks for taking the time to contribute this feature! Could you please have a look at the checklist and do the things on it when you have the time? Then we can merge this.

[enekomartinmartinez]

Hi @bouweandela

Sorry for the delay; I have been on a research visit since April and have not worked on priority topics related to my research.

The test failed because the method I modified was not covered by the original tests. I have added a small test to ensure the data is saved in order in the settings.yml. It is a really simple case, but I guess it is enough.

Let me know if you require a more specific example/test.

[enekomartinmartinez]

Something failed with the Codacy Upload

[bouweandela]

Something failed with the Codacy Upload

Yes, it's a known issue with the Codacy Coverage uploader: codacy/codacy-coverage-reporter#500.

[bouweandela]

Thanks, looking fine!