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

Add support for VTG forecasts #48

Open
maximecarre1 opened this issue Mar 7, 2023 · 6 comments
Open

Add support for VTG forecasts #48

maximecarre1 opened this issue Mar 7, 2023 · 6 comments
Assignees
Labels
enhancement New feature or request postponed

Comments

@maximecarre1
Copy link
Collaborator

The IWLS team is starting tests to integrate VTG stations forecasts to the database; support for the new data source (wlf-vtg) will need to be added to IwlsApiConnectorWaterLevels()

@maximecarre1 maximecarre1 self-assigned this Mar 7, 2023
@maximecarre1 maximecarre1 added the enhancement New feature or request label Mar 7, 2023
@maximecarre1
Copy link
Collaborator Author

S104GeneratorDCF8() also needs to be updated to support VTGs.

@glmcr
Copy link
Collaborator

glmcr commented Mar 7, 2023

Which TG is used to test the VTG forecasts exactly? I now see a choice of wlf-vtg for Sept-Iles on the IWLS dev server but no data seems available for now.

@maximecarre1
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I'm not sure of the current coverage; data is only in neptune-dev for now.

@glmcr
Copy link
Collaborator

glmcr commented Mar 7, 2023

Since the VTG data we will use will come from the IWLS RTDB itself then it is a forecast like another one and we will just have to set the related metadata name (methodWaterLevel*) and the time increment (1 hour).

@maximecarre1
Copy link
Collaborator Author

maximecarre1 commented Mar 7, 2023

Past hindcasts may also be stored in the same database entry for wlf-vtg, we will have to decide if we keep them together with the forecasts in S-104 files or split them by water level data type. (different values for dataDynamicity)

@glmcr
Copy link
Collaborator

glmcr commented Mar 7, 2023

I would say let`s keep it all as forecasts for now even if it is in the past compared to the time of the S-104 DCF8 files production. The other option would be to only take the timestamps of the future for the S-104 DCF8 data (this would also apply to any forecast data). We will see later if we really need to separate the hindcasts from the forecasts. Note also that it is likely that we will propose a nowcast data type for the next S-100 specs

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request postponed
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants