You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
As far as I know, the pti repo uses two lists, and this two list provide different outputs sometimes. For example one list provides:
and the other one is :
It must be justified which one should we use for the future. This causes problems in the future especially in the case of working with cumulative parameters in its corresponding repetative mechanism that we developed recently in the metanorm repo.
Up to now, we have used search_cf_standard_name_list method of pti for normalizers in metanorm or sometimes get_cf_standard_name method of it.
BUT, if we use get_wkt_variable method, it will causes above mentioned inconsistency and may cause repetitive parameter(that have the same statndard name) assignment to the same dataset.
Please, justify about the usage of pti dear @akorosov .
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
@akorosov
In order to solve the consequences of this issue we must check all the functions inside all normalizers that are related to dataset parameters and check them once again after reaching a conclusion for this issue.
As far as I know, the pti repo uses two lists, and this two list provide different outputs sometimes. For example one list provides:
and the other one is :
It must be justified which one should we use for the future. This causes problems in the future especially in the case of working with cumulative parameters in its corresponding repetative mechanism that we developed recently in the metanorm repo.
Up to now, we have used
search_cf_standard_name_list
method of pti for normalizers in metanorm or sometimesget_cf_standard_name
method of it.BUT, if we use get_wkt_variable method, it will causes above mentioned inconsistency and may cause repetitive parameter(that have the same statndard name) assignment to the same dataset.
Please, justify about the usage of pti dear @akorosov .
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: