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

UGRID test showin version 2.0 #15

Open
SBFRF opened this issue May 11, 2020 · 6 comments
Open

UGRID test showin version 2.0 #15

SBFRF opened this issue May 11, 2020 · 6 comments

Comments

@SBFRF
Copy link

SBFRF commented May 11, 2020

when i do compliance-checker -l from the command line i get responded with below

 - UGRID:2.0
 - acdd:1.1
 - acdd:1.3
 - cf:1.6
 - cf:1.7
 - ioos:0.1
 - ioos:1.1
 - ....

where ugrid is listed as version 2.0 but from http://ugrid-conventions.github.io/ugrid-conventions/ states that they're on version 1. Am I missing where 2.0 exists?

@jcermauwedu
Copy link

@ChrisBarker-NOAA I was wondering about this too, the conventions page does say version 1. Is there a version 2? Or is that to mean cf-1.11?

@ocefpaf
Copy link
Member

ocefpaf commented May 23, 2024

That change happened in #12. I'm not sure we have enough information to answer that questions. The person that submitted that PR is not longer working on RPS as far as I know.

With that said. This plugin is kind of abandoned. We are probably better off investing in CF 1.11 in compliance-checker, that includes the UGRID specs, and retire this plugin.

@ChrisBarker-NOAA
Copy link

I’ll need to dig in a bit — it may be 1.1, but certainly not 2. While included in CF 1.11, the CF conventions refer to UGRID, rather than duplicating it — so I believe it has its own version still.

@ocefpaf
Copy link
Member

ocefpaf commented May 23, 2024

Sure. I meant more from a Software perspective, retire this repository, and implement it correctly in compliance-checker's CF-1.11 module. If it is CF it should be close to compliance-checker and not a plugin. Does that make sense?

@ChrisBarker-NOAA
Copy link

Sure -- I have no idea the implication of plugin vs part of the base code -- but if that's easier, then great.

Any progress is seeing if we can leverage the Met Office's checker? Would that be easier as a plugin?

@ocefpaf
Copy link
Member

ocefpaf commented May 23, 2024

Sure -- I have no idea the implication of plugin vs part of the base code -- but if that's easier, then great.

It is mostly maintainability. Having the main checkers in a single repo will make things easier.

Any progress is seeing if we can leverage the Met Office's checker? Would that be easier as a plugin?

Not really but I would start with their checker instead of this one for the compliance-checker CF-1.11 implementation. We should also touch base with them again and ask for collaboration.

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

No branches or pull requests

4 participants