investigate commented-out phenology in do_conversions

[infotroph]

Code in workflow::do_conversions:

if (input.tag == "leaf_phenology" && is.null(input$path)) {
      # settings$run$inputs[[i]]$path <- PEcAn.data.remote::extract_phenology_MODIS(
      #   site_info,
      #   start_date,
      #   end_date,
      #   outdir,
      #   run_parallel = TRUE,
      #   ncores = NULL
      # )
      needsave <- TRUE
    }

@mdietze in #3407 (comment) :

Not sure why this bit is commented out -- seems like something we need to be operational

[Sweetdevil144]

@infotroph I'd like to work on this. Any more information regarding this?

[infotroph]

You know, I looked at the history and think we should assign this one to @mdietze: It seems this line was added in response to his comments, then he commented it out, then he asked why it's commented.

(Sorry to drag you, Mike, but the setup was too good to resist 😁 💚)

[mdietze]

The commit message associated with me commenting out the code was "Commenting out for now to try and get the build to pass (currently all the function arguments are undefined), but leaving so that a future PR can finish implementing"

See PR #3249

@Sweetdevil144 if you want to work on getting this to run correctly that'd be really helpful.

Likewise, if you go back to the discussion thread on that PR you'll see there are a couple other places where I left comments about things that needed to be fixed but where I wasn't holding up that PR (e.g., hardcoding of PFTs within write.configs.SIPNET)