Add a test for collective netcdf mpi io

[uramirez8707]

Description
Add a test for collective netcdf mpi io

The test creates a 1 undistributed file io_layout of 1,1 using domain decomposed fms2_io then reads the file using collective netcdf (currently collective netcdf only works if the layout and the io_layout are the same when writing)

Fixes # (issue)

How Has This Been Tested?
CI

Checklist:

• My code follows the style guidelines of this project
• I have performed a self-review of my own code
• I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
• I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
• My changes generate no new warnings
• Any dependent changes have been merged and published in downstream modules
• New check tests, if applicable, are included
• make distcheck passes

[uramirez8707]

@rem1776 thanks for helping me figure this out!

[rem1776]

Looks good, i think that m4/check_parallel4.c file can probably be removed though. It should be autogenerated during configure so might have been added accidently.

[uramirez8707]

Looks good, i think that m4/check_parallel4.c file can probably be removed though. It should be autogenerated during configure so might have been added accidently.

That is not auto generated. It is used for cmake builds.

FMS/CMakeLists.txt

Lines 292 to 294 in 6fea71e

	try_compile(NF_HAS_PARALLEL4 ${CMAKE_CURRENT_BINARY_DIR}
	"${CMAKE_CURRENT_SOURCE_DIR}/m4/check_parallel4.c"
	)

I wasn't sure about the best way to do this, so let me know if you have a better idea

[rem1776]

The cmake netcdf module should have a check for that already, I think we just weren't using it before:

FMS/cmake/FindNetCDF.cmake

Lines 12 to 18 in eef4a89

	# This module defines
	#
	# - NetCDF_FOUND - System has NetCDF
	# - NetCDF_INCLUDE_DIRS - the NetCDF include directories
	# - NetCDF_VERSION - the version of NetCDF
	# - NetCDF_CONFIG_EXECUTABLE - the netcdf-config executable if found
	# - NetCDF_PARALLEL - Boolean True if NetCDF4 has parallel IO support via hdf5 and/or pnetcdf

We should be able to use that in the conditional instead