extra dump before decode

[volodymyrss]

includes #286

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 81.57895% with 7 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 59.32%. Comparing base (4290767) to head (77c8dfc).
Report is 1 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
tests/test_data_products.py	87.09%	4 Missing ⚠️
oda_api/data_products.py	57.14%	3 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #287      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   59.01%   59.32%   +0.30%     
==========================================
  Files          23       23              
  Lines        4956     4993      +37     
==========================================
+ Hits         2925     2962      +37     
  Misses       2031     2031              

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[burnout87]

I guess now the tests can be removed/adapted?

if it's ok for you I can do it

[volodymyrss]

It's important to keep the test, at least the one I added, to capture the problem and make sure it does not repeat with future updates.

The test_rmf can be updated as you prefer.
Although in principle it is a higher-level test so it's good to keep it too.
It was important to show that the patch I provided is fixing the test @ferrigno added to demonstrate.
That is, it could be updated a bit if needed, much of it was not actually triggering for me.
What do you propose exactly?

[burnout87]

What do you propose exactly?

Nothing in particular. Yes, to keep especially your test is important. As the test_rmf, also for me, I dont have the second exception caught too (I managed to have when running the same steps on a notebook...probably some differences in the environments used), so perhpas just that test can be adapted.

[volodymyrss]

What do you propose exactly?

Nothing in particular. Yes, to keep especially your test is important. As the test_rmf, also for me, I dont have the second exception caught too (I managed to have when running the same steps on a notebook...probably some differences in the environments used), so perhpas just that test can be adapted.

I suppose there is a reason @ferrigno added this code, so if this motivation is written in a comment like I did, we could preserve it too.
If not useful let's reduce or drop it. Up to you and @ferrigno .