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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
Enchancing Metadata Support for SOAR #118
Enchancing Metadata Support for SOAR #118
Changes from 13 commits
122e964
0e3307b
70c4c32
a7f7102
3d15042
4748035
f5ac3ec
8496fed
f4340d8
074bb5c
f9a789c
cec907d
1873850
76e1900
d920659
d1b4510
6fc6921
f9352f1
52366cc
6b838c3
183c2d8
645aca5
bd8bc31
616f96b
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't wavemin from h2 too?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Even if it is just parsed as a pattern in client.py, shouldn't it be consistent with wavemax?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think as we are giving both wavemin and wavemax as a single parameter for query, I think its one of the simpler ways to implement it. If its still necessary to try something else, let me know :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
No it was just a thought about consistency between Wavemin and Wavemax.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Do we need
*
here, as we select not all columns when a join is needed?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is for instruments where we don't need the join.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Also a test for LL data?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Actually there is
test_search_low_latency()
(for MAG data; executes the query), and the newtest_join_low_latency_query()
(for EUI; only tests the query string, without executing it). So maybe this is enough?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
yep, will reverse this change!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Does this need to be duplicated?
I also think it should be its own test.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This feels like 3 separate tests in one? I think this is the same for the test below as well?
I would prefer if we can keep each unit test as focused as possible.
It makes fixing one easier if one part breaks but not another.