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
Fix 3a3b transition in the aapp l1b reader #805
Fix 3a3b transition in the aapp l1b reader #805
Conversation
Bring my fork up to date
Signed-off-by: Adam Dybbroe <Adam.Dybbroe@smhi.se>
self._is3b = np.repeat(is3b, | ||
self._data['hrpt'][0].shape[0], axis=1) | ||
is3a = np.expand_dims(np.bitwise_and(self._data['scnlinbit'], 3) == 0, 1) |
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.
I notice that these operations don't seem to be dask at all. As such, could we only do this bitwise_and
once? Right now, it is used for both 3b and 3a checks. Or, even better, convert this reader to use dask better.
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.
Yes, we discussed that here. @mraspaud indicated that this could need a daskification overhaul. I just wanted to make sure we get this improvement in now. The Dask could come in the next step. Also, there is no test for this reader it seems, right?
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.
Right. It seems there are no tests.
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.
I will see what I might have/take time to fix. Both concerning Dask and tests. But, feel under pressure fixing our transition to our Satpy based production, and this is a minor thing in this regard...
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.
Ok, so I will merge this now, given the time constraints we have on this being fixed and the time it would take to overhaul this (tests and dask-friendliness) and we open an issue to remind us on what needs to be done.
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #805 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 82.95% 82.94% -0.02%
==========================================
Files 163 163
Lines 23605 23608 +3
==========================================
Hits 19581 19581
- Misses 4024 4027 +3
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
1 similar comment
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #805 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 82.95% 82.94% -0.02%
==========================================
Files 163 163
Lines 23605 23608 +3
==========================================
Hits 19581 19581
- Misses 4024 4027 +3
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
Until now we only checked if channel 3b was set or not. We did not check if there was a transition (where there is apparently uncertainty which channel is active or both are not okay or set...)
This PR fixes this so we check explicitly for 3a and 3b. This means data where none are set is left out.
flake8 satpy
AUTHORS.md
if not there already