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
Added count of the number of elements that have missing values by period (and station) to Inventory dialog #8391
Added count of the number of elements that have missing values by period (and station) to Inventory dialog #8391
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@Vitalis95 and @lilyclements that looks great. I am not sure cum is needed, once we have cum1, but I'd like to keep both for now while we use it.
The one change is that when we save the results into a data frame, I don't think we need them in the output window as well. I hope that is easy to arrange. I am also approving, because it will be great to add this feature.
@rdstern ,results are no more in the output window when we save it. |
@Vitalis95 except you have now gone too far in the other direction! Here is the output window reporting the filts sub-dialog, but not that I used the inventory. b) When the results are not saved into a dat frame, then they should go into the output window! Thanks |
@rdstern , have a look at it. Thanks |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@Vitalis95 I could accept that. Except it wasn't a tibble before. Now it is and so only gives 10 rows and suggests the command to get more. That is ok in the output window, but I would have liked more rows in the maximised window. If it remains the same, then I suggest you need to make n larger than 10?
And I tried the summary dialog, which shows the comment fine - see figure above? I wonder why I don't get it here?
@rdstern , I checked with Patrick on the comment, probably there some controls which are not translated. That one can be done on a separate pull request |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@Vitalis95 this is great. @lloyddewit I hope the code is acceptable so it can be merged soon?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@Vitalis95 Thanks, just one small question
Co-authored-by: lloyddewit <57253949+lloyddewit@users.noreply.github.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@lloyddewit this still looks ok to me. This is also an improvement that will be good for the next workshops.
Fixes #8342
@rdstern @lloyddewit @lilyclements @N-thony , this PR fixes part d) of the issue; adding in a count of the number of elements that have missing values by period (and station)