-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 107
Hotfix noheader list #215
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
Hotfix noheader list #215
Conversation
…needed in cases where there might be a leading whitespace
| pf.extra_py_imports.append('flopy') | ||
| pf.mod_sys_cmds.append("which python") | ||
| if "linux" in platform.platform().lower(): | ||
| pf.mod_sys_cmds.append("which python") |
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.
Think I just added this when I was having some pathing issues can probs be dropped if not useful.
|
@jtwhite79, Re rows that are not to be observationalized (love it.): I agree that skipping whole rows is best. I think that this speeds up the processing of those HUGE files when not all rows contain obs. Is this what is currently happening (i.e we write |
|
Currently, each skipped row is getting a full compliment of so skipping those rows with just an |
|
double agree |
added support for whitespace delim list files with and without headers. Switched from
winstruction to!dum!instruction inpst_utils.csv_to_ins_file()for whitespace delim since it should be a safer option to guard against leading whitespace issues. Also relaxed the restriction that the!dum!entry in the output file be cast to double (this has also been changed in pest++ and I think pest will also make the change soon) - this helps with tables of mixed types that might not be numeric. Had to switch to thefeat_newtoolsbranch of pest++ to support this so we need to keep in mind to switch back todevelopat some point in the future. One thing Im still wondering about: for rows that are to be skipped in the output file, should we skip the row with just al1rather than filling out the row for all the markers and/or!dum!instructions? I think so but @briochh would know better.