Opened 11 years ago
Closed 10 years ago
#597 closed defect (wontfix)
Using custom axis names in coverage constructor WCPS queries
Reported by: | olcl | Owned by: | Piero Campalani |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | major | Milestone: | |
Component: | petascope | Version: | 8.5 |
Keywords: | Cc: | Peter Baumann | |
Complexity: | Medium |
Description
When using the coverage constructor syntax Petascope fails when the axis are not named according to x,y,t convention. The examples below show this.
This works
for c in (CCI_chla_daily) return encode( (float) coverage histogram over $px x( 0 : 0 ), $py y( 0 : 0 ), $pt t( 0 : 364 ) values ( add( (c[x(-50:-40), y(45:55),t($pt)]> -1 ) * c[x(-50:-40), y(45:55),t($pt)]) / count(c[x(-50:-40), y(45:55),t($pt)]> -1 ) ) , "csv")
This fails
for c in (ESA_CCI_v1_0_chlor_a_daily) return encode( (float) coverage histogram over $px x( 0 : 0 ), $py y( 0 : 0 ), $pday day( 0 : 364 ) values ( add( (c[x(-50:-40), y(45:55),day($pday)]> -1 ) * c[x(-50:-40), y(45:55),day($pday)]) / count(c[x(-50:-40), y(45:55),day($pday)]> -1 ) ) , "csv")
error logs can be found @ http://pastebin.com/xUB7MrND
Change History (9)
comment:1 by , 11 years ago
comment:2 by , 11 years ago
Yes this is fixed in 9.0, but we are still able to fix bugs in release_8.5
, it's still under maintenance afaik. ?
comment:3 by , 11 years ago
I believe it's supposed to be a major effort, otherwise we would've fixed this long ago?
comment:4 by , 11 years ago
I believe this is probably due to a coupe of fetching domain element metadata by type, instead of by name, somewhere in petascope.wcps.server.core.*
.
comment:5 by , 11 years ago
how far away are stable release RPM's for version 9? if not far then maybe less important to fix in 8.x but if they are quite a time away then maybe fixing 8.x would be best option (from user perspective)
comment:6 by , 11 years ago
Cc: | added |
---|
The schedule is for end of this month. So in my opinion it would be better to focus on making 9.0 stable then re-fixing bugs in 8.5
comment:7 by , 11 years ago
i agree, if we are only 2 weeks aways from stable v.9 RPM's then waiting is probably the best option
comment:8 by , 11 years ago
I think this will be obsoleted by 9.0 (different way of getting axis names afaik) so it should be marked as such and left open for 8.5 maintenance with low priority.
Isn't this fixed in 9.0? I doubt we could go back and fix these things in 8.5 now.