Skip to content
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

check cdmver before getting period #424

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Nov 15, 2024
Merged

check cdmver before getting period #424

merged 1 commit into from
Nov 15, 2024

Conversation

atheurer
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@atheurer atheurer requested a review from k-rister November 14, 2024 19:27
@atheurer atheurer merged commit 0e3e90b into master Nov 15, 2024
215 checks passed
@k-rister k-rister deleted the cdmvercheck branch November 15, 2024 14:01
@k-rister
Copy link
Contributor

@atheurer it just occurred to me that this is determining what the CDM version is by looking at the CDM repo, but that is somewhat irrelevant to what the result directory it is looking at is version wise. I took a quick glance and I don't see anything in a postprocessed run directory that indicates what CDM version it adheres to -- shouldn't that be something that is included as part of the documents?

@k-rister
Copy link
Contributor

@atheurer To be clear, this PR should allow your existing v8dev PR to pass CI, but I'm wondering if we should also include embedding of the CDM version in the documents as part of the new v8dev changes.

@atheurer
Copy link
Contributor Author

@atheurer To be clear, this PR should allow your existing v8dev PR to pass CI, but I'm wondering if we should also include embedding of the CDM version in the documents as part of the new v8dev changes.

Yes, I was thinking about this, too. I do think we need to embed the version in the docs, but I wanted to make that a different effort if possible. We probably need to pull the logic from rickshaw-index that finds the actual cdm version present in the indices and put that in toolbox or maybe just a script in CDM.

@k-rister
Copy link
Contributor

@atheurer To be clear, this PR should allow your existing v8dev PR to pass CI, but I'm wondering if we should also include embedding of the CDM version in the documents as part of the new v8dev changes.

Yes, I was thinking about this, too. I do think we need to embed the version in the docs, but I wanted to make that a different effort if possible. We probably need to pull the logic from rickshaw-index that finds the actual cdm version present in the indices and put that in toolbox or maybe just a script in CDM.

I guess that poses an interesting question, does making it part of a different effort mean that it is part of a newer version (v9dev)? It seems like unless we make the changes in an atomic fashion that each change means a new version, and switching versions seems to be annoying at best. But if you are comfortable with that then I'm fine with it.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
Status: Done
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants