Fix v1.0.0

[mvarewyck]

No description provided.

[SanderDevisscher]

this is still WIP I'll convert it into draft untill completed

[mvarewyck]

@TheJenne18 I think the version on exoten-uat.inbo.be is not including recent changes.
One month ago I have implemented a change to pick up the split translation files, but still the online version seems not to incorporate this change.

[SanderDevisscher]

@TheJenne18 implementing the changes required for #98 would reduce the number of questions like #74 (comment) 😉

[SanderDevisscher]

@TheJenne18 I think the version on exoten-uat.inbo.be is not including recent changes. One month ago I have implemented a change to pick up the split translation files, but still the online version seems not to incorporate this change.

@mvarewyck the previous deployment originated at acc5d11
Currently a deployment is running originating from 6d6fb68, see https://github.com/inbo/alien-species-portal/actions/runs/9300534300

[TheJenne18]

@mvarewyck

@TheJenne18 I think the version on exoten-uat.inbo.be is not including recent changes. One month ago I have implemented a change to pick up the split translation files, but still the online version seems not to incorporate this change.

I've just fixed it: 679a830

[SanderDevisscher]

@mvarewyck

@TheJenne18 I think the version on exoten-uat.inbo.be is not including recent changes. One month ago I have implemented a change to pick up the split translation files, but still the online version seems not to incorporate this change.

I've just fixed it: 679a830

ok redeploying

[SanderDevisscher]

The deployment action got a cancel order again.

[SanderDevisscher]

@TheJenne18 @mvarewyck succesfull deployment to uat should get highest priority!

[SanderDevisscher]

The GAMs mention there is no data for Tribulus terrestris while there are at least 3 observations in the data. This seems to be a bug.

According to the data processing script this is a species introduced before 1950 and therefore excluded from the timeseries data as datasource for the GAM models.

I agree this can be confusing. So, I suggest we either

1. update the data processing script such that same filtering is applied to both data sources or
2. we clearly state the difference between both data sources in some disclaimer in the app and disable the 'Indicators' tab in this case.

@SanderDevisscher What is the preferred behavior from your side?

@mvarewyck I would implement option 2 with a disclaimer on the indicators tab if the species only has observations prior to 1950. You can make the disclaimer "this species has no recent (after 1950) georeferenced observations in Belgium. If you think this is incorrect please report a sigthing at observations.org or inaturalist.org"

[mvarewyck]

The GAMs mention there is no data for Tribulus terrestris while there are at least 3 observations in the data. This seems to be a bug.

According to the data processing script this is a species introduced before 1950 and therefore excluded from the timeseries data as datasource for the GAM models.
I agree this can be confusing. So, I suggest we either

1. update the data processing script such that same filtering is applied to both data sources or
2. we clearly state the difference between both data sources in some disclaimer in the app and disable the 'Indicators' tab in this case.

@SanderDevisscher What is the preferred behavior from your side?

@mvarewyck I would implement option 2 with a disclaimer on the indicators tab if the species only has observations prior to 1950. You can make the disclaimer "this species has no recent (after 1950) georeferenced observations in Belgium. If you think this is incorrect please report a sigthing at observations.org or inaturalist.org"

@SanderDevisscher There are recent observations for Tribulus terrestris. The reason why this species is excluded for the GAM data is that the year of first observation is < 1950. So we need to adapt the disclaimer into sth like: "The year of first observation for this species is before 1950, so the emergence status is not assessed".

[SanderDevisscher]

Hmm in that case i think its better to review the timeseries creation to keep species with observations after 1950 in contrast to species introduced after 1950.

@timadriaens @soriadelva @bramdhondt what do you think ?

1. No GAM for species introduced prior to 1950 even if they have observations after 1950?
2. GAM for species with observations after 1950 independent of when they were introduced ?
3. Drop the year cutoff all together?
4. Something else?

[soriadelva]

Hmm in that case i think its better to review the timeseries creation to keep species with observations after 1950 in contrast to species introduced after 1950.

@timadriaens @soriadelva @bramdhondt what do you think ?

1. No GAM for species introduced prior to 1950 even if they have observations after 1950?
2. GAM for species with observations after 1950 independent of when they were introduced ?
3. Drop the year cutoff all together?
4. Something else?

I'd prefer option 2.

[bramdhondt]

From a distance : I'd also prefer option 2.

[SanderDevisscher]

@mvarewyck if the make report button works without throwing a timeout I can approve this PR (see also #74 (review))

[mvarewyck]

From a distance : I'd also prefer option 2.

@SanderDevisscher How do you want to proceed on this? This is something at the data processing side.

[SanderDevisscher]

@mvarewyck I'm approving this PR if no other issues arise when the deployment is finished (https://github.com/inbo/alien-species-portal/actions/runs/9936182167). This means fixing #104 is moved to fix v1.1.0.

[SanderDevisscher]

@mvarewyck issue #70 seems to be persistent, example: Cyprinus carpio (141117232)

I'm moving it to fix_v1.1.0