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

io.nordic: Settings "Time_Residual_RMS" #1696

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Mar 7, 2017

Conversation

Projects
None yet
3 participants
@calum-chamberlain
Contributor

calum-chamberlain commented Mar 6, 2017

4363cb6 hides a warning that is set when Time_Residual_RMS timing errors are set. Our event data model cannot represent that and it should potentially be changed to something else? Support error quantifications include uncertainty, lower_uncertainty, upper_uncertainty, and confidence_level.

@calum-chamberlain: Any opinion/preference?

@calum-chamberlain

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@calum-chamberlain

calum-chamberlain Mar 6, 2017

Contributor

To me (having had more of a dig around now), it looks like it should go in:
origin.quality.standard_error
How does that sound? Want a PR for that?

Contributor

calum-chamberlain commented Mar 6, 2017

To me (having had more of a dig around now), it looks like it should go in:
origin.quality.standard_error
How does that sound? Want a PR for that?

@krischer

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@krischer

krischer Mar 6, 2017

Member

I just had a look at the QuakeML definition and I agree with you. A PR would be great :)

Member

krischer commented Mar 6, 2017

I just had a look at the QuakeML definition and I agree with you. A PR would be great :)

@calum-chamberlain

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@calum-chamberlain

calum-chamberlain Mar 6, 2017

Contributor

Can you convert this to a PR, I never know how that works, or should I just make a branch and go?

Contributor

calum-chamberlain commented Mar 6, 2017

Can you convert this to a PR, I never know how that works, or should I just make a branch and go?

@krischer

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@krischer

krischer Mar 6, 2017

Member

For those too relaxed to look it up:

standardError: RMS of the travel time residuals of the arrivals used for the origin computation. Unit: s

Member

krischer commented Mar 6, 2017

For those too relaxed to look it up:

standardError: RMS of the travel time residuals of the arrivals used for the origin computation. Unit: s

@krischer

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@krischer

krischer Mar 6, 2017

Member

we should be able to once you have a branch somewhere

Member

krischer commented Mar 6, 2017

we should be able to once you have a branch somewhere

@krischer

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@krischer

krischer Mar 6, 2017

Member

I use this here: https://hub.github.com/

Command is

hub pull-request -i 1683 -b obspy:master -h obspy:flake8-no-verbose https://github.com/obspy/obspy/issues/1683

The first branch is the target branch, the second the branch with the changes.

Member

krischer commented Mar 6, 2017

I use this here: https://hub.github.com/

Command is

hub pull-request -i 1683 -b obspy:master -h obspy:flake8-no-verbose https://github.com/obspy/obspy/issues/1683

The first branch is the target branch, the second the branch with the changes.

@krischer

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@krischer

krischer Mar 6, 2017

Member

Sometimes it does not seem to work if the other branch is not a branch on the main ObsPy fork - no clue why.

Member

krischer commented Mar 6, 2017

Sometimes it does not seem to work if the other branch is not a branch on the main ObsPy fork - no clue why.

@calum-chamberlain

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@calum-chamberlain

calum-chamberlain Mar 6, 2017

Contributor

Oh, very exciting - does that look right?
Also, thanks for educating me! hub looks very useful.

Contributor

calum-chamberlain commented Mar 6, 2017

Oh, very exciting - does that look right?
Also, thanks for educating me! hub looks very useful.

@QuLogic

QuLogic approved these changes Mar 6, 2017

@krischer

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@krischer

krischer Mar 6, 2017

Member

I actually don't use it for anything else but it does indeed look like it has some nice features :-)

Member

krischer commented Mar 6, 2017

I actually don't use it for anything else but it does indeed look like it has some nice features :-)

@krischer

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@krischer

krischer Mar 7, 2017

Member

Thanks for the quick work on this @calum-chamberlain!

Member

krischer commented Mar 7, 2017

Thanks for the quick work on this @calum-chamberlain!

@krischer krischer merged commit b6e47cf into master Mar 7, 2017

5 of 6 checks passed

continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build is in progress
Details
ci/circleci Your tests passed on CircleCI!
Details
continuous-integration/appveyor/branch AppVeyor build succeeded
Details
continuous-integration/appveyor/pr AppVeyor build succeeded
Details
docker-deb-buildbot Deb packaging and testing succeeded
Details
docker-testbot Docker tests succeeded
Details

@krischer krischer deleted the move_time_rms branch Mar 7, 2017

@QuLogic QuLogic added this to the 1.1.0 milestone Mar 7, 2017

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment