Improve naming of apps/tasks for clarity

[alistairsellar]

Some apps are confusingly names, particularly configure_recipe and configure_for. Decide new names and implement them.

Tentative app names:

• configure_for -> update_assessment_recipe
• configure_recipe -> configure_assessment_tool

[ehogan]

I asked M365 Copilot to help with naming suggestions. It said:

Expand for the gory details 🤪

Since you want names that are consistent and tool-agnostic, a good approach is to pick a clear verb–object pattern and keep it uniform across all functions.

Option A – Concise, action‑oriented (snake_case)
Best for readability and brevity in Python.

create_user_config()
configure_outputs()
update_recipes()
run_evaluation()
run_standardization()

Why this works

Uses simple, consistent verbs.
Keeps semantics generic (no tool names).
Separates the two “run” functions by the nature of the pipeline: evaluation vs standardization.

Option B – Slightly more explicit (snake_case)
If you want to emphasize that these act on a pipeline/process.

prepare_user_config()
configure_processing()
update_all_recipes()
execute_evaluation()
execute_standardization()

Notes

prepare_ implies setup that produces an artifact.
configure_processing() is tool-agnostic and covers CDDS-like configuration.
update_all_recipes() makes it explicit that it touches each recipe.

Option C – Consistent noun phrase + verb (snake_case), with “pipeline” framing
Good if you think of this as a workflow.

setup_user_config()
setup_outputs()
refresh_recipes()
execute_evaluation()
execute_standardization()

Notes

setup_* for preparatory steps.
refresh_recipes() is a friendly synonym for update.

Option E – Extra clarity with object nouns
This makes the target of each function explicit.

create_user_config_file()
configure_output_schema()
update_recipe_definitions()
run_model_evaluation()
run_output_standardization()

Notes

Adds “file”, “schema”, “definitions” for precision.
Still tool-agnostic, but semantically richer.

Quick mapping to your description

Create a user configuration file → create_user_config() / prepare_user_config() / setup_user_config() / create_user_config_file()
Configure standardized model outputs → configure_outputs() / configure_output_schema() / configure_processing()
Update each recipe → update_recipes() / update_all_recipes() / update_recipe_definitions()
Run ESMValTool → run_evaluation() / execute_evaluation()
Run CDDS → run_standardization() / execute_standardization()

Recommendation
If you want clean, Pythonic names that are easy to scan:

create_user_config()
configure_outputs()
update_recipes()
run_evaluation()
run_standardization()

These are short, tool-agnostic, and follow a consistent verb–object pattern.

The apps / tasks are currently called:

• configure_recipe
• configure_standardise
• configure_for
• run_recipe
• standardise_model_data

Based on the above, and ensuring that the names:

• contain either "evaluation" (== ESMValTool) or "standardisation" (== CDDS), to make it clear what the app / task is related to, at a glance
• contain familiar ESMValTool terms like "user_config" and "recipe", for clarity
• follow a consistent verb-object pattern
• are tool-agnostic

(which are, if I remember correctly, all the things that were raised during the refinement meeting) I feel the ideal names would be:

• create_evaluation_user_config
• configure_standardisation
• update_evaluation_recipe
• run_evaluation
• run_standardisation

I realise update_evaluation_recipe is similar to what was proposed in the refinement meeting (update_assessment_recipe), and is quite lengthy, but there are two other tasks that have longer names! assessment could be used instead of evaluation, if preferred. (I prefer evaluation, as is sounds more like ESMValTool and less like AutoAssess 🤪)

Naming things is the hardest part of being a software engineer 🤪

[NParsonsMO]

I am a fan of simply naming the tools we're using, as different tools may require different steps, so my suggestions would be these: