[nssdca-delivery] PDS_ATM Pack12

[tinagueth]

Discipline Node Information

• Delivering Node: PDS_ATM

• NSSDCA Delivery Package: pdsatm_pack12_20231017.tar.gz

• Validation report: pdsatm_pack12_validationreports.tar.gz

NOTE: If you have multiple delivery packages, we strongly encourage you to submit these in batches of 3 to 10 per issue with one ZIP file of the packages and another ZIP file of the validation reports. Please use a descriptive title, such as "Node Mission misc batch #".

---

Engineering Node Process

See the internal EN process at https://pds-engineering.jpl.nasa.gov/content/nssdca_interface_process

[oddes]

@tinagueth : These 4 sets have been posted for NSSDCA processing. From tomorrow, you can check the status at https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/psi/ReportPDS4.jsp using the SIP LIDs below:

SIP LIDs: urn:nasa:pds:system_bundle:product_sip_deep_archive:mars2020_meda_v6.0_20231017 urn:nasa:pds:system_bundle:product_sip_deep_archive:mars2020_moxie_v7.0_20231017 urn:nasa:pds:system_bundle:product_sip_deep_archive:mgs_tes_atmos_dust-ice_v1.0_20231017 urn:nasa:pds:system_bundle:product_sip_deep_archive:mgs_tes_recalib_atmos_v3.0_20231017

[smclaughlin7]

@oddes Hi, Sri! The NSSDCA Delivery Package that @tinagueth submitted, pdsatm_pack12_20231017.tar.gz includes these two SIP LIDs:

urn:nasa:pds:system_bundle:product_sip_deep_archive:vo_irtm_v1.0_20231017 urn:nasa:pds:system_bundle:product_sip_deep_archive:vo_mawd_v1.0_20231017

I'm curious why they were not posted for NSSDCA processing. Thanks!

[tinagueth]

@smclaughlin7 I did not even notice those two SIP LIDs missing (too many recent submitted bundles to keep on top of after our local computer issue was resolved). Hence I appreciate this. Thanks @smclaughlin7 and @oddes

[oddes]

@smclaughlin7 following two SIP LID's are not reported might be due to the validate errors. urn:nasa:pds:system_bundle:product_sip_deep_archive:vo_irtm_v1.0_20231017 [vo_irtm_v1.0_20231017-validate.txt] urn:nasa:pds:system_bundle:product_sip_deep_archive:vo_mawd_v1.0_20231017 [vo_mawd_v1.0_20231017-validate.txt] Errors needs to be resubmitted with the corrections.

[lylehuber]

There are no validation errors that I can find. Please specify.

[c-suh]

@lylehuber our apologies! Here are the 2 reports we meant to attach:

• vo_irtm_v1.0_20231017-validate.txt
• vo_mawd_v1.0_20231017-validate.txt

I believe these are the same errors uncovered in this submission for ATM pack 9. We discussed upgrading deep-archive in the resubmission of ATM pack 9 (v2). A note that upgrading deep-archive would let you know of this error earlier in the process but not fix the error itself, and that the key to addressing the error may be found in the conversation in the original submission, https://github.com/NASA-PDS/operations/issues/373.

[lylehuber]

So what was the actual solution? I understood that “../“ was allowed but that I was using it in the wrong tag.

Lyle

[c-suh]

@lylehuber I am handing off your question to @jordanpadams. Was there a discussion or decision regarding this (relative paths and use of ../) in the DDWG meeting? Is ../ allowed and if so, in which tag?

[jordanpadams]

@lylehuber see comment here: https://github.com/NASA-PDS/operations/issues/373#issuecomment-1504062862

in general though, using ../ is not allowed as far as I understand it. All files are supposed to be in the same directory of a directory below current directory (.e.g path/to/file). I can dig through the standard, but this can cause all kinds of chaos in the system if we don't restrict relative path usage.

[jordanpadams]

Also per this comment from Stef: https://github.com/NASA-PDS/operations/issues/373#issuecomment-1504078060

[jordanpadams]

Per SR, these products with relative paths cannot be read by tools, and should be updated. Closing this delivery. Please create a new delivery when things have been cleaned up.