Skip to content

Conversation

@jacob-a-brown
Copy link
Contributor

@jacob-a-brown jacob-a-brown commented Nov 10, 2025

the updates herein enable the tests to pass all tests except for @then("the response should include the source of the well depth information") since the polymorphic source table is still in development. I've made changes in a variety of places. The only changes I made to models is to fix some lexicon terms and add @property fields to the thing model. Otherwise the work has been done in schemas and the testing directory

@jacob-a-brown jacob-a-brown changed the title updates to pass tests through well depth updates to pass tests Nov 11, 2025
well_casing_materials: list[CasingMaterial] = []
well_construction_notes: str | None = None
well_status: str | None
measuring_point_height: float
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
measuring_point_height: float
measuring_point_height: float | None

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

measuring_point_height is required for every water level measurement to get depth of water below ground surface. Why do you think it should be optional?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Because the transfer script results in some rows having a NULL in the measuring_point_height field, leading to a 500 error when I request it.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Got it 👍 . The updates I have made to the transfer scripts now require a measuring_point_height for every well. That's in another PR... (PR #242 )

@jacob-a-brown
Copy link
Contributor Author

@ksmuczynski and @jirhiker, @TylerAdamMartinez came across an error that I didn't anticipate:

I changed line 183 to alternate_organization: Organization (a restricted list of enums). I made this update because of the name of the field. In the script transfers/link_id_transfer.py, however, PLSS data is being added as alternate IDs and the alternate_organization is being set to PLSS. This is not an organization in our lexicon term table. My questions are:

  1. Should the field alternate_organization be restricted to the enums? If so, should PLSS be added to as an organization to the lexicon (even though it isn't really)?
  2. Should the name of the field alternate_organization change so that PLSS can be added? If so, should the field be a string or an enum?

@jacob-a-brown jacob-a-brown reopened this Nov 11, 2025
@jacob-a-brown jacob-a-brown changed the title updates to pass tests BDMS 221: updates to pass tests Nov 11, 2025
@jirhiker
Copy link
Member

@ksmuczynski and @jirhiker, @TylerAdamMartinez came across an error that I didn't anticipate:

I changed line 183 to alternate_organization: Organization (a restricted list of enums). I made this update because of the name of the field. In the script transfers/link_id_transfer.py, however, PLSS data is being added as alternate IDs and the alternate_organization is being set to PLSS. This is not an organization in our lexicon term table. My questions are:

  1. Should the field alternate_organization be restricted to the enums? If so, should PLSS be added to as an organization to the lexicon (even though it isn't really)?
  2. Should the name of the field alternate_organization change so that PLSS can be added? If so, should the field be a string or an enum?

For the sake of expediency add PLSS as an alternate_organization to the lexicon

@jacob-a-brown jacob-a-brown merged commit a6c5556 into bdms-221 Nov 13, 2025
4 checks passed
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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants