goldy

In that case, I think we should have an MPAS test category we could use to make sure all the cases can run in principle. We don't have this right...

I suggest using the `` sections (and getting rid of the vestiges of the oooold test system (e.g., `151 tsm, ter).

I believe that the PUMAS issue for this is ESCOMP/PUMAS#8. Keeping this issue open so that when the fix is tagged in PUMAS, we can update the Externals_CAM.cfg file.

This is a great discussion but I worry that other compset discussions are potentially being forgotten. Maybe take the compset name part of this issue conversation along with #475, #692,...

I would veto it but I think we will also be getting new nudging code soon so we can let it ride this time.

Note, there was some discussion of this in the PR to prebuild a while ago. See the [comment about the proposed capgen implementation](https://github.com/NCAR/ccpp-framework/pull/463#issuecomment-1594278661) for a suggestion about CCPP standard names...

My preference would be to just add anything reasonable that is requested. It is pretty easy to add a new conversion to @climbfuji's unit_conversion.py module.

Some test suggestion: - Test for handling of duplicate compatible constituent - Test for handling of duplicate semi-compatible constituent (e.g., unit difference), that the framework cannot handle. - Test for...

> @gold2718 @mwaxmonsky Would you like to re-review before merging this? Sorry, can I have today?

Note, I think this feature requires a change to the CCPP Framework rules. However, I did not see it in the rules. The closest I got was the "Reason" behind...