Remove standard_wrf_dirs and use wildcard for WRF paths

[IncubatorShokuhou]

In this PR, I removed the standard_wrf_dirs variable and switched to using regular expressions, so we don't need to modify the WRF directory name or update the standard_wrf_dirs variable every time a new version is released.

[islas]

-maxdepth nor -regex are standard to find
An alternative could be :
ls .. | grep -E 'WRFV?(-?[0-9]+(\.[0-9](\.[0-9])?)?)?'

However, caution should be used as both options do not appear in version order. The naming is also variable enough that POSIX sort cannot work well to put these in order.

[IncubatorShokuhou]

-maxdepth nor -regex are standard to find An alternative could be : ls .. | grep -E 'WRFV?(-?[0-9]+(\.[0-9](\.[0-9])?)?)?'

However, caution should be used as both options do not appear in version order. The naming is also variable enough that POSIX sort cannot work well to put these in order.

I have abandoned the use of complex regular expressions and have instead opted for more explicit if statements. This should be more convenient for maintenance.

[islas]

-V is part of GNU sort, so I would recommend something like:
sort -t. -k 1,1.4n -k 2,2nr -k 3,3nr
to get the desired effect. The breakout into explicit if statements does look a lot more manageable.

[mgduda]

-V is part of GNU sort, so I would recommend something like: sort -t. -k 1,1.4n -k 2,2nr -k 3,3nr to get the desired effect. The breakout into explicit if statements does look a lot more manageable.

Should this be

sort -t. -k 1.4,1n -k 2,2nr -k 3,3nr

instead?

[islas]

You're right, I confused the first and last character placement

[mgduda]

I'm not sure whether the incorporation of the - character in the first key is too clever or not. So an alternative might be

sort -t. -k 1.5,1nr -k 2,2nr -k 3,3nr

This may be a bit clearer, since all keys are being sorted in reverse numerical order.

[mgduda]

Following the discussion on this PR, I'd suggest we change sort -rV to sort -t. -k 1.5,1nr -k 2,2nr -k 3,3nr.

[mgduda]

Here, as well as on lines 212 and 219, I think WRF_DIR should be wrf_dir; otherwise, the check on line 235 will fail.