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

energy_g** from website pull does not report integrated energy #22

Closed
jcsmithhere opened this issue Jun 12, 2023 · 3 comments · Fixed by #25
Closed

energy_g** from website pull does not report integrated energy #22

jcsmithhere opened this issue Jun 12, 2023 · 3 comments · Fixed by #25

Comments

@jcsmithhere
Copy link
Collaborator

The energy_g** field when pulling data from the GLM website reports the energy of the first group, not the total integrated energy.

@jcsmithhere
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Given this is a bug in released code (that we know it is used by others), it is high priority to fix this bug.

If we had the personnel, ideally we would have unit tests for each release. I'm not sure we can support that. But we still need to fix bugs as they emerge.

@anthonyozerov
Copy link
Collaborator

anthonyozerov commented Jun 28, 2023

It looks like the energy in the JSON data given at https://neo-bolide.ndc.nasa.gov/service/event/public is actually just the the energy of the first group in each NetCDF file. The JSON response does not seem to contain the integrated energy or a time series of energies. I don't know if this behavior on the website is intended or not.

Given that behavior, it is not currently possible to get the integrated energy without pulling the single-detection NetCDF or csv files from the website, which is very slow. @jcsmithhere what would you think of removing the energy values from the BolideDataFrame and only adding them when add_website_data (which actually pulls the single-detection files) is called?

In the future, when the website changes or we have a better way of pulling published detections into the package, we can put energy_g1* back into the initial BolideDataFrame.

@jcsmithhere
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I see. We could either remove the field or relabel it to first_cadence_energy_g**. The latter is not very useful and might cause confusion for some users. So, it's probably better to just not add the energy values unless the add_website_data is called. Also, mention this in the documentation.

Hopefully we can get the new website and unified database working in the near future, but I fear we are still numerous months away. When we do, we will still need a better way to pull data from the website for this package. I'll need to remember to ensure the web developers keep this in mind.

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 a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants