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

fixes #164 Battle clear edi historical data #188

Merged
merged 7 commits into from
Feb 27, 2024

Conversation

alvizek
Copy link
Collaborator

@alvizek alvizek commented Jan 24, 2024

This PR pulls data from EDI for Battle and Clear and adds to the standard format scripts. In the pull script (data-raw/qc-markdowns/rst/battle_clear_edi.Rmd) I noted some TODOs. I would focus review on these and let me know what you think. We can discuss as needed.

@alvizek alvizek requested a review from ErinCain January 24, 2024 20:18
@alvizek alvizek changed the title Battle clear edi historical data fixes #164 Battle clear edi historical data Jan 24, 2024
Copy link
Collaborator

@ErinCain ErinCain left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Overall looks good to me. A couple of items to note:

  • some NAs for stream that we should double check we are consistent on removing (looks like we remove for trap in standard format but not catch, or I am missing something)
  • We may need to open an issue to handle the new site lbc.
  • Agree it would be good to follow up on the data quality issues that we see persisting on the EDI package.

mutate(stream = case_when(grepl("clear", site) ~ "clear creek",
grepl("battle", site) ~ "battle creek"),
site = case_when(site == "upper battle creek" ~ "ubc",
site == "lower battle creek" ~ "lbc",
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

lbc is a new site we didn't have data on that site before. Do we want to create an issue to add that to all our other tables/lookups?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This lbc might have to do with a release location but no RST site

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looked into this more and there are fish being caught at lbc and include spring chinook. Most of this data is prior to 2003 which we originally were not provided with. We should double check with Natasha about using this data but should also open an issue to add lbc to tables/lookups

Copy link
Collaborator

@ErinCain ErinCain left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

looks good!

@alvizek alvizek merged commit 37b6fbc into main Feb 27, 2024
@alvizek alvizek deleted the battle-clear-edi-historical-data branch February 27, 2024 18:04
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.

2 participants