Skip to content
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

Attribute Unit Problem in ana_anomaly Service #1041

Open
MonicaStone-NOAA opened this issue Jan 15, 2025 · 3 comments
Open

Attribute Unit Problem in ana_anomaly Service #1041

MonicaStone-NOAA opened this issue Jan 15, 2025 · 3 comments
Assignees
Labels
bug Something isn't working
Milestone

Comments

@MonicaStone-NOAA
Copy link

In the following service, the attribute "Latest Streamflow (cfs)" is displaying values in cms instead of cfs. Please correct the code to convert the NWM cms values to cfs for this service.

https://maps.water.noaa.gov/server/rest/services/nwm/ana_anomaly/MapServer

@MonicaStone-NOAA MonicaStone-NOAA added the bug Something isn't working label Jan 15, 2025
@MonicaStone-NOAA MonicaStone-NOAA added this to the V2.1.x milestone Jan 15, 2025
@shawncrawley
Copy link
Collaborator

I also just noticed that this service is considering each and every conus stream (all 2.7+ million), and only filtering it down based WHERE average_flow_7day IS NOT NULL OR average_flow_14day IS NOT NULL. This ends up including many streams whose "latest_flow" that you reference above is NULL/None due to how we use the derived.channels_conus as the basis and LEFT JOIN the ingest.nwm_channel_rt_ana table, which itself is a subset of all 2.7+ million streams WHERE streamflow >= 0.001.

Is that working as intended? Or should we flip this to where the latest AnA output (i.e. ingest.nwm_channel_rt_ana) forms the initial basis of what could be included (i.e. current flows >= 0.001), and then from there join the ingest.ana_7day_anomaly and ingest.ana_14day_anomaly tables WHERE average_flow_7day IS NOT NULL OR average_flow_14day IS NOT NULL.

I hope this makes sense.

@shawncrawley
Copy link
Collaborator

After thinking about it more, I'm actually more sure that we'd want to keep it how it is. If we changed it to what I was wondering about, we could end up excluding any extremely anomalous dry conditions (i.e. streams that had flow over the past 14 days, and normally expect flow, but are currently dry or near-dry). Does that sound right?

@MonicaStone-NOAA
Copy link
Author

I'm not 100% sure I follow everything above, but I am okay with leaving it how it is and just correcting the unit issue. We can also meet if you want to try and describe it more to me.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug Something isn't working
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants