Remove high_water_threshold filter from RFC FIM processing #761
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Refs #760 The three lines removed from rfc_based_5day_max_inundation.sql should have never been in there in the first place. They were added by oversight when refactoring code to use the new FIM Caching mechanism, as these lines are common to all NWM FIM products. However, since this is not a NWM FIM product, we should not be comparing the authoritative flood-status flows (from official RFC forecasts) to NWM recurrence flows.
nickchadwick-noaa
approved these changes
Jun 6, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This solves issue #760.
The three lines removed from rfc_based_5day_max_inundation.sql should have never been in there in the first place. They were added by oversight when refactoring code to use the new FIM Caching mechanism, as these lines are common to all NWM FIM products. However, since this is not a NWM FIM product, we should not be comparing the authoritative flood-status flows (from official RFC forecasts) to NWM recurrence flows.