Description of the issue
I'm working ISTP validation and have a few things that aren't just updating the metadata itself:
- We have a number of events with
apd_id of 31. @mstarkey2158 I think we wanted to filter those events out entirely in L3, am I remembering correctly? Or should we keep them, and change VALIDMAX to 31? (VALID here doesn't mean "physically valid", just "not numerically bad") Similar question for position.
- For a lot of attributes, the value we have is the empty string
''. SPDF doesn't like this.
- If we have no units, for instance, it's supposed to be a single space,
" " -- but it's okay to not have any UNITS at all for VAR_TYPE metadata. It looks like we are not specifying these in the yaml, so they're probably being inferred by SAMMI?
- There are places where we're explicitly specifying VARIABLE_PURPOSE of
"", where we probably should leave it out entirely?
- I'm not sure exactly how we're getting to this point, but we should have a consistent solution for L3. If removing things from the YAML does the trick, we should do that, and maybe update however we're converting the
data_product_definition_csv files to YAML (special-case empty as "don't include"?) Or maybe we should update write_cdf to strip out empty string attributes before writing? Let's have a quick call if necessary.
- We have a number of slightly negative
tof values, about -3 to -0.5. @mstarkey2158, do we want to retain these, explicitly make them fill, make VALIDMIN negative so they show up as valid data, or something else? EDIT: most, but not all, of these have apd_id of 31; not many have position of 31
Steps to reproduce the issue
No response
Expected vs Actual behavior
No response
Code Snippet (If applicable)
Additional notes, affected areas, and suggested fixes
No response
Description of the issue
I'm working ISTP validation and have a few things that aren't just updating the metadata itself:
apd_idof 31. @mstarkey2158 I think we wanted to filter those events out entirely in L3, am I remembering correctly? Or should we keep them, and change VALIDMAX to 31? (VALID here doesn't mean "physically valid", just "not numerically bad") Similar question forposition.''. SPDF doesn't like this." "-- but it's okay to not have any UNITS at all for VAR_TYPE metadata. It looks like we are not specifying these in the yaml, so they're probably being inferred by SAMMI?"", where we probably should leave it out entirely?data_product_definition_csvfiles to YAML (special-case empty as "don't include"?) Or maybe we should updatewrite_cdfto strip out empty string attributes before writing? Let's have a quick call if necessary.tofvalues, about -3 to -0.5. @mstarkey2158, do we want to retain these, explicitly make them fill, make VALIDMIN negative so they show up as valid data, or something else? EDIT: most, but not all, of these have apd_id of 31; not many have position of 31Steps to reproduce the issue
No response
Expected vs Actual behavior
No response
Code Snippet (If applicable)
CodeAdditional notes, affected areas, and suggested fixes
No response