chore: reading 'positive' attribute back to the depth dimension #103
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
renaudjester
changed the title
uriii3
force-pushed
the
copernicusmarine-toolbox-v2
branch
2 times, most recently
from
55f580d to
dccee67
Compare
Not using any cache anymore Always get the data on the fly
uriii3
commented
Jul 31, 2024
Comment on lines
+380
to
+384
| elif coordinate_label in ["depth", "elevation"]: | ||
| attrs["valid_min"] = coord.values.min() | ||
| attrs["valid_max"] = coord.values.max() | ||
| coordinate_attributes.append("positive") | ||
| elif coordinate_label == "latitude": |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this might seem weird but makes quite sense and it will all be deleted with the other PR... but I wanted to keep it separated just in case.
renaudjester
approved these changes
Jul 31, 2024
renaudjester
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 20, 2024
Reordering the attributes of the dimensions, we considered that it was best to keep the attribute `positive`, to have it clear where the dimension depth points (down for depth, up for elevation).
renaudjester
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 20, 2024
Reordering the attributes of the dimensions, we considered that it was best to keep the attribute `positive`, to have it clear where the dimension depth points (down for depth, up for elevation).
renaudjester
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 29, 2024
Reordering the attributes of the dimensions, we considered that it was best to keep the attribute `positive`, to have it clear where the dimension depth points (down for depth, up for elevation).
uriii3
changed the title
renaudjester
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 28, 2024
Reordering the attributes of the dimensions, we considered that it was best to keep the attribute `positive`, to have it clear where the dimension depth points (down for depth, up for elevation).
renaudjester
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 28, 2024
Reordering the attributes of the dimensions, we considered that it was best to keep the attribute `positive`, to have it clear where the dimension depth points (down for depth, up for elevation).
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.
After a discussion with Tony in CMT-35 we discussed that it was better to keep the attribute
positivefor the depth dimension, set correctly todownif the dimension was depth (by default) or toupif the dimension was elevation.I considered that it was best to keep these changes separately from other ones concerning the netcdf compliance of the output files of the toolbox. This way, we can more easily undo if there is some problem or found exactly which could be the case.