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

comlandr discards #63

Open
andybeet opened this issue Aug 19, 2024 · 2 comments
Open

comlandr discards #63

andybeet opened this issue Aug 19, 2024 · 2 comments
Assignees
Labels
review Seems fishy! Needs a review

Comments

@andybeet
Copy link
Member

andybeet commented Aug 19, 2024

Refine discard estimates for use in SOE indicators and RPath models
Review methods

Meet on 29th August to make a decisin by 9th Sep

@andybeet andybeet added the review Seems fishy! Needs a review label Sep 13, 2024
@BBeltz1 BBeltz1 assigned BBeltz1 and unassigned BBeltz1 Oct 10, 2024
@andybeet
Copy link
Member Author

andybeet commented Oct 23, 2024

get_comdisc_data is the main function for pulling discards. The arguments passed (comlandr data pull, names of fields, and boolean aggregation fields) are all somewhat dependent on each other. This is causing errors when there is a contradiction. For example.

If a comlandr data pull is made without aggregating the data, then the field names need to be changed.
If a comlandr pull is made with aggregateion then you must opt to aggregate the discards.

We need to add checks before running to ensure options are correct. Default arguemnts should all be geared towards the option of not aggregating the data

@andybeet andybeet self-assigned this Oct 23, 2024
@sgaichas
Copy link
Member

We can also consider a wrapper function that would pull both landings and discards because many users may want "catch" which is landings + discards. This would allow the arguments to be consistent for both.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
review Seems fishy! Needs a review
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants