Add IML input option to NSHM Hazard Tool Disaggregation

New components for disagg control panel:

• toggle: IML or Return Period; action: enable/disable the input fields below as appropriate
• Input field with "IML (geomean, g)" placed below current 'Return Period' fields
• It's conceivable that the two rows of inputs could start with radio buttons that just enables/disables one input option or the other; the separate toggle and text wouldn't be needed

Based on which input is selected, the appropriate disagg service endpoint should be used.

Also, because the "Hazard Curves" (static and dynamic) tools have a "Scale to Max Direction" option, consider adding a "Max Direction?" checkbox next to the IML input box.

changed due date to May 05, 2022

assigned to @pmpowers

changed the description

assigned to @kpage and unassigned @pmpowers

removed due date

Something like this?

Or does IML also need a "Presets" dropdown?

Or, does the "Max Direction?" checkbox go where the "Presets" dropdown does for the return period?

I'd vote for this one, in which case the "geomean" after IML should be removed, to end up with "Intensity Measure Level (g)" when the IMT is SA, or "Intensity Measure Level (cm/s)" (or other units?) when the IMT is PGV. When the IMT is PGV, I think the "Max Direction?" checkbox would need to be deactivated for now, because I don't think we have max-direction scale factors for PGV yet.

mentioned in issue nshmp-haz#526 (closed)

mentioned in issue nshmp-haz#527 (closed)

The initial implementation is mostly finished, with a couple of caveats. The max-direction functionality is blocked by nshmp-haz#526 (closed), since it turns out that the web service does not currently provide that option in this case.

There are also currently no bounds on the IML field, since I don't know what bounds would be appropriate. @bclayton wants the web service to dynamically provide the bounds to the application (nshmp-haz#527 (closed)), but having hardcoded bounds at least for now would be better than having no bounds. What would an appropriate lower and upper bound be? (Are the bounds different for different units?)

I also have some clarifying questions about specific IMTs. The SA IMTs have an IML in g, and PGV has one in cm/s, but there is also one called PGA that isn't addressed in the above comment. What units should it use? Additionally, I would like to confirm that PGV is the only IMT for which the max-direction checkbox should be deactivated.

Also, a question that I should have asked a lot earlier: what term should I be using to refer to the choice between return period and IML? I've been calling them "output filters" in variable and type names, based on a total and likely incorrect guess as to what purpose they serve. I would very much appreciate a better term to use, from someone who actually knows what this stuff does.

disaggTarget is a good identifier to distinguish between IML and RP.

Default IML ranges:
[0.0001 .. 8.0] for PGA and all SA's
[0.1 .. 1000] for PGV

Units:
Can a ts enum have a class implementation? If yes, then the Imt enum entries could specify it's string representation as well as units. Otherwise a utility method somewhere that mimics: https://code.usgs.gov/ghsc/nshmp/nshmp-lib/-/blob/main/src/main/java/gov/usgs/earthquake/nshmp/gmm/Imt.java#L106 Perhaps this sort of static method can go in Imt.model.d.ts itself

Current imt utilities are here: https://code.usgs.gov/ghsc/nshmp/nshmp-web-utils/-/blob/main/src/nshmp-lib/models/gmm/imt.model.ts

Add any more utilitites for Imt there.

That's a separate repository. Should I open an issue there and start working on it?

yeah

changed milestone to %NSHM Hazard Tool

The service usage metadata currently only provides one set of bounds on the IML field. From #93 (comment 277818), it seems like it would need to provide different bounds for IMTs that use different units.

With someone's go-ahead, I could open the appropriate issues on nshmp-haz and nshmp-web-utils and start working on them.

I will update web service.

added To Do label

added In Progress label and removed To Do label

mentioned in merge request !177 (closed)

added Needs Review label and removed In Progress label

mentioned in issue #119 (closed)

mentioned in issue #120 (closed)

added To Do label and removed Needs Review label