Merged
Conversation
gadomski
force-pushed
the
issues/87-no-processing-time-in-ids
branch
from
b7ad12a to
883d70e
Compare
TomAugspurger
approved these changes
Sep 14, 2022
Member
TomAugspurger
left a comment
TomAugspurger
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I looked through the changes to the .py files and they look good, thanks. CI doesn't seem happy though :/
gadomski
force-pushed
the
issues/87-no-processing-time-in-ids
branch
from
061ae4a to
f4655fe
Compare
Not sure why this worked before, but now this _doesn't_ work for cli plugin registry
This gets is a different to_wkt signature for CRSes
gadomski
force-pushed
the
issues/87-no-processing-time-in-ids
branch
from
f4655fe to
80d4850
Compare
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Related Issue(s):
Description:
There's three spots I had to change to strip the processing datetime off of the item ids. Not great, but not worth a refactor IMO (effort required to make it cleaner would be way more than is appropriate for this small of a fix #techdebt).
@TomAugspurger in this repo, we have static "example" JSON files that we use for our unit tests. This leads to a lot of noise in every PR, which is why I've moved away from this pattern for later stactools-packages. The *.py files and one example item should be enough for a review.
We never released a v0.3.0 (we stayed in pre-release) so IMO once this PR is merged, we could release v0.3.0 as a breaking change from v0.2.0.
PR checklist:
scripts/format).scripts/lint).scripts/test).