-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Fix for #44, add support for modis collection 6 (and retain support for 5) #68
Conversation
…r one. fixed archive update
(Edited to resolve conflicts by tolson during rebase to branch `dev`.)
(Edited by tolson during rebase onto branch `dev`.)
Except for the print statement it looks ok to me. We can talk about tests. I tested gips_process with:
|
So the system tests need revision to pass, for obvious reasons: Source data changes result in process & project data changes. I want to double-check what I'm seeing in these test runs so I'm going to post outcomes here and I'd like to get feedback. To start with, here's what had to change to make the test of
|
UPDATE: There seems to be a bug of some kind: Products for 2012-338 are not generated if you run Here're the change that makes the system test for Here's the changes to the list of created files:
|
Update: I spent today trying to figure this out, to no avail. Commenting out ndvi8 seems to fix the problem for the rest of the products, so per advice from @bhbraswell I'm leaving it that way for the time being. Apparently ndvi8 is less important as a product so it's okay. I'll file an issue for this with details on errors observed etc. |
Now that you know that remove ndvi8 gets rid of the problem, I can look a little more closely at that processing block.
|
@bhbraswell Okay cool, see issue #70 for details I found after our mtg today. I'm going to pivot back to catching up on system tests now. |
fix busted products by deactivating ndvi8, details: #70. MOD09Q1 is no longer needed so remove it from asset lists.
Tests pass now; I merged in I think this may be ready to merge. |
I just talked to @justinfisk about this. There were some questions about whether the update functionality could create a problem for a user who might want to maintain continuity with a thread of work that is an old version. I more or less BSed my way to an agreement with him that for RS data, you either always want the newer version, or for some reason possibly you don't care about the version. But I think in any case we should be on a path to get this into dev unless he has further comments. |
I bought the BS. This PR has the coveted fisk seal of approval. |
I believe you mean the "highly coveted" |
This was made by:
git checkout modis-6 && git rebase -i master HEAD --onto dev
The diff doesn't look exactly the same as the old PR:
#53
@bhbraswell could you read through this and confirm that it looks right? If there are any problems we can add commits until it's okay. Likewise I would like to add unit tests. I also want to confirm system tests still pass, but for that I have to wait on other PRs.