-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 15
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
Process pointinspection and Documentation #271
Conversation
missed to commit changes in eggshell |
travis and codacy are not happy yet. You could also add a test. |
I haven't checked the eggshell ... but it should provide supporting functions not knowing about |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
My suggestion would be for all processes to return netCDF files. This way we're able to use process outputs as inputs to other processes.
We can then have a process to convert netCDF to CSV.
docs/source/descriptions/subset.rst
Outdated
**Polygons** | ||
Abbreviation of the appropriate polygon. | ||
|
||
**Mosaic** |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Confusing, since PointInspection has no mosaic argument.
@huard agree with netcdf outputs. How to configure the output if the number of outputs can vary? Can you point me to an example? |
@nilshempelmann Do you mean if the number of geometries is larger than one, or if the number of input files is larger than one ? I'll assume it's the former, and then OCGIS supports it out of the box, you just pass a list of geometries to OCGIS and make sure you specify |
@huard The number of netCDF output files vary if input files are model results from different GCMs-RCMs. Input files can be belonging to different modelruns, the process are sorting them and process all different models separatly And yes multiple geometries / optional unify results in variation of the number of outputs. So the current solution was to archive all of them and output one singe archive. We also should keep the DRS-nameing logig and respect the CMIP/Cordex archive standarts. Here they separate the geometries/domains in seperate files. A following process (e.g. visualisation) starts with archive_extract, in case of input=tarfile. If you have a solution to avoid the archive-tar would be nice. |
I understand now. You are saying the the current output is a tar file, which allows us to bundle multiple output files together in one single ComplexOutput. I think now is the time to implement a generic approach for multiple file output using the MetaLink standard. See geopython/pywps#298 I suggest we first test and discuss it in Emu then move the solution to this process. |
And here comes the issue #273 :-) |
Following processes are sucessfully running, but test are failing (related bird-house/emu#70): @huard need your help to get the oranus subset processes in place. #274 |
@cehbrecht Finally :-) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
short review ... not tested yet. Added comments to the code.
while execution.status == 'ProcessAccepted': | ||
execution.checkStatus(sleepSecs=1) | ||
output_json = execution.processOutputs[0].reference | ||
if output_json[:7] == 'file://': |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
why is if
needed? In a test you have a fixed expectation.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@huard That's an Ouranos process. I leave it to you to change it correctly
self.assertEqual(nc.subset_featureid, 'montreal_circles.43') | ||
nc.close() | ||
|
||
def test_subset_wfs_opendap_01_default_geoserver(self): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This test (and others) look quite complicated. Can it be changed? Test code should be simple, otherwise it is to likely to break as well.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@huard That's an Ouranos process. I leave it to you to change it correctly
|
||
try: | ||
from tests import test_wps_utils | ||
except ImportError: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
why is the try
needed?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@huard That's an Ouranos process. I leave it to you to change it correctly
self.config = configparser.RawConfigParser() | ||
if os.path.isfile('configtests.cfg'): | ||
self.config.read('configtests.cfg') | ||
else: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
why if
?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@huard That's an Ouranos process. I leave it to you to change it correctly
@cehbrecht : commented your change request. |
@cehbrecht I need help with the workdir settings. If I get it right it needs to be updated in all the eggshell functions as well, since there are many files produced there.
@huard @Zeitsperre If you have time check the Subset Process Documentation.