fixed DNB_SENZ file_key

[wjsharpe]

Changed DNB_SENZ file_key in viirs_l1b reader yaml from 'geolocation_data/solar_zenith' to 'geolocation_data/sensor_zenith'.

• Closes VIIRS L1B DNB_SENZ file_key #2790

[djhoese]

Wow this is...embarrassing how long this has been there. Thanks for fixing this. It looks like tests are failing perhaps because your version of Satpy in your fork isn't synced with the pytroll satpy main branch which includes some changes to how satpy is packaged. Could you try rebasing with main and we'll see how the tests goes?

[wjsharpe]

Hi David, thanks for getting back to me so fast. I'm a little at a loss by the tests failing, I did sync my fork before making any of my changes and confirmed that the only difference between the main branch and mine was in that one line in the reader yaml. Steve and I looked at it for a while and couldn't figure it out. If you have any guidance on how to proceed that would be appreciated, especially since it's such a little change.

[pnuu]

I restarted the tests. The failure was something about hatchling not having a kwarg for timeout, so maybe there was a version mismatch or something.

[wjsharpe]

Seems like it still failed for the same reason. I checked and made sure the pyproject.tomls were identical. This may be entirely unrelated but the only difference I am seeing between these CI actions failing and the ones that have recently passed is that mine is running the "Update Environment" step while most of the successful runs seemed to skip that.

[mraspaud]

@wjsharpe So I've been investing with @pnuu the problem in the tests, and we can't find anything wrong. I created #2792, which is basically the main branch where I cherry picked your commit, and there doesn't seem to be any problem.

I just restarted the jobs, to see if it was some temporary glitch in the dependency resolution that would install an old version of the build system.

Looks good so far...

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 95.94%. Comparing base (87d072d) to head (609fdcb).
Report is 2 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #2791   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   95.94%   95.94%           
=======================================
  Files         379      379           
  Lines       53693    53693           
=======================================
  Hits        51515    51515           
  Misses       2178     2178           

Flag	Coverage Δ
behaviourtests	4.09% <ø> (ø)
unittests	96.04% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 8804006679

Details

• 0 of 0 changed or added relevant lines in 0 files are covered.
• No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
• Overall coverage remained the same at 0.0%

---

Totals
Change from base Build 8787439081:	0.0%
Covered Lines:	0
Relevant Lines:	0

---

💛 - Coveralls

[wjsharpe]

@djhoese Wanted to circle back to this. It seems like the tests are passing besides one which is failing for unrelated reasons. Do you guys think this is ready to merge? Thanks again for the help in debugging.

[djhoese]

Done. Thanks.