-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2
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
Standard product check #285
Merged
Merged
Changes from 8 commits
Commits
Show all changes
9 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
88b7ac5
Merge pull request #251 from NASA-IMPACT/dev
jenny-m-wood 6195cea
Merge pull request #268 from NASA-IMPACT/dev
jenny-m-wood bed9e24
Merge pull request #271 from NASA-IMPACT/dev
jenny-m-wood e800dde
Merge pull request #275 from NASA-IMPACT/dev
jenny-m-wood d8c6b5c
Merge pull request #276 from NASA-IMPACT/dev
jenny-m-wood 05191f1
worked on the standard product check error
binni979 5d73536
Added a docstrings in standard_product_check function
binni979 42d575b
Modified standard product check function
binni979 f2287ea
worked on the one_time_presence_check function
binni979 File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains 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
This file contains 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
This file contains 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
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
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.
Why rename the method? What's the benefit of using one or the other method name? Can the older model name not be used?
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.
we already have a
dif_standard_product_check
method, no?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 have
dif_standard_product_check
that is used to check the extended metadata for DIF schema, but thestandard_product_check
is used to check theStandardProduct
key inside the collection for schema echo-c and umm-c.I thought, creating a new function solved the problem, but it shows the error again and now I changed the code which is different from the previous function
dif_standard_product_check
.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.
If it's just checking values in a constrained list, don't we already have a check that does this? why start a new one?
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.
Looks like Standard Product Check is using the already existing
one_item_presence_check
check, which goes like this:This check is failing for the collection mentioned in the issue because the value is
False
and theif field_value:
clause fails. It can be remedied by doing something like this instead:@binni979
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.
Thank you @slesaad didi. Worked on that.
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.
Did you test it? Everything working well?
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 tested it on the "UMM-C record (C1577484501-LARC_ASDC)". Yes, everything working well.