Skip to content
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

Establish modifications to QC process #221

Closed
benjwadams opened this issue Jun 23, 2023 · 5 comments
Closed

Establish modifications to QC process #221

benjwadams opened this issue Jun 23, 2023 · 5 comments

Comments

@benjwadams
Copy link
Contributor

Please list desired changes to QC process. This does not directly include things like the documentation and migrating to the ioos_qc library.

So far:

  1. Always apply QARTOD to variables, regardless of whether user supplied QC variables are provided.
  2. Eliminate _qc variables which appear unused in favor of aggregate flags.
@leilabbb
Copy link
Contributor

leilabbb commented Jun 26, 2023

  • Need to create an event driven workflow to set a priory for real time data files to be QCed first.
  • Need to use all files in a deployment to consolidate a comprehensive list of variables to be QCed.
  • Need to warn against variables with invalid standard names or dimensions that prevent QARTOD variables creation.
  • Need to ensure that the created QARTOD variables are available to end users on ERDDAP.

@kerfoot
Copy link
Contributor

kerfoot commented Aug 31, 2023

One additional change:

  1. Remove the 15 or so legacy variables noted in issue #268 unless they are included in the files submitted by the data providers.

@benjwadams
Copy link
Contributor Author

  1. in original post should be split out into separate issue if it isn't already.

  2. Implement aggregate QC flags to meet NDBC GTS Ingest requirements #277 covers aggregate flags,
    Removal of all unused legacy _qc variables #278 covers legacy *_qc variables.

Would recommend closing this issue once adequately split up.

@kerfoot
Copy link
Contributor

kerfoot commented Sep 8, 2023

I would suggest closing this as I believe it is being addressed in a series of other issues that are more specific with the overall goal of establishing an updated QC process.

@kerfoot
Copy link
Contributor

kerfoot commented Sep 13, 2023

All issues/comments above have been addressed in smaller, more focused issues. Closing.

@kerfoot kerfoot closed this as completed Sep 13, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants