fix pluto qaqc for 23v1

[damonmcc]

issues

• a pluto version must be explicitly listen in QAQC code to be viewable in the app
• the pluto repo branch used to generate 23v1 data is called 23v1-dev and is being "blacklisted" because it resembles a version string

changes

• add 23v.1 to list of pluto versions
• remove regex in blacklist function responsible for excluding branches with version-like names
• do ad-hoc standardizing of qaqc data with underscore notation (22v3_1) in strings to allow for dot notation (22v3.1) in app
• in pluto/helpers replace all use of rv variable (aka return value) with more explicit variable names

notes [in-progress]

• the underscore/dot notation problem is due to how PLUTO data is published and that we archive it from the published location.
  • our data-library template to archive pluto uses the bytes hyperlink to get it. that hyperlink uses underscore notation while everywhere else (our code, release details on DCP sites) uses dot notation
  • I had to use underscore notation to archive the recent minor release
  • seems preferable to use dot notation in the UI of the QAQC app

[fvankrieken]

Seems good, the one thing that I would comment here is that given that we're comparing two different major versions here, it might be good to add some customization to what older diff is being used - as you mentioned to me, we wouldn't expect a big diff between 22v3 and 22v3.1 (and it's the first... patch? Extra minor? release we've done), so it might be more helpful to compare diff 23v1 - 22v3.1 to 22v3.1 - 22v2 (don't know if that's possible, do we pre-process these diffs?). But the just 22v3 - 22v2), or 22v1 - 21v3, etc.

That might be out of scope of this PR though, more a general improvement that would be good for the qc process.

[damonmcc]

@fvankrieken

Seems good, the one thing that I would comment here is that given that we're comparing two different major versions here, it might be good to add some customization to what older diff is being used - as you mentioned to me, we wouldn't expect a big diff between 22v3 and 22v3.1 (and it's the first... patch? Extra minor? release we've done), so it might be more helpful to compare diff 23v1 - 22v3.1 to 22v3.1 - 22v2 (don't know if that's possible, do we pre-process these diffs?). But the just 22v3 - 22v2), or 22v1 - 21v3, etc.

definitely agree it isn't ideal to see two different types of comparisons (major-minor and minor-major)

and yea since the diffs are pre-processed (generated during a build and appended to to files like qaqc_mismatch.csv) the attempt I just made to do "Use these 3 drop down boxes to pick any 3 versions you want" failed because the pair string 22v3.1 - 22v2 isn't in any qaqc files

[fvankrieken]

@fvankrieken

Seems good, the one thing that I would comment here is that given that we're comparing two different major versions here, it might be good to add some customization to what older diff is being used - as you mentioned to me, we wouldn't expect a big diff between 22v3 and 22v3.1 (and it's the first... patch? Extra minor? release we've done), so it might be more helpful to compare diff 23v1 - 22v3.1 to 22v3.1 - 22v2 (don't know if that's possible, do we pre-process these diffs?). But the just 22v3 - 22v2), or 22v1 - 21v3, etc.

definitely agree it isn't ideal to see two different types of comparisons (major-minor and minor-major)

and yea since the diffs are pre-processed (generated during a build and appended to to files like qaqc_mismatch.csv) the attempt I just made to do "Use these 3 drop down boxes to pick any 3 versions you want" failed because the pair string 22v3.1 - 22v2 isn't in any qaqc files

Simplest solution might just be to have another dropdown for the "Diff for comparison"

[damonmcc]

Simplest solution might just be to have another dropdown for the "Diff for comparison"

I like that. that'd still be limited to those diffs that have been generated but is more flexible than the current

[
  v1,
  v1 - 1, 
  v1 - 2,
]

[damonmcc]

seems fair to consider what @fvankrieken is suggesting as a worthy enhancement, but out of scope for this "bug" fix

per the urgency of wanting to build PLUTO on main, allowing Lynn to use the QAQC app to inspect 23v1, and Finn being in onboarding all day: @AmandaDoyle or @mbh329 wanna review the changes here?

[mbh329]

@damonmcc and @fvankrieken I think the proposed changes to the qaqc make sense to me. It would be nice to have the dropdown where we can compare versions more dynamically but is outside the scope of this PR as yall mentioned. I tested the changes locally and they look good to me

[damonmcc]

deploy to dokku run after having merged this PR