Closed stantond closed 3 years ago
The naming came from work, the Open Source EMEP MSC-W model uses PM25
for PM2.5 and I'm so used to it that pm2_5
looks wrong to me.
I already have 1.5 years collected as pm25
so I won't change the fields names, but I could define raw2_5
/pm2_5
as properties for all relevant PM sensors. Would this be sufficient?
Makes sense if you're confirming to another standard, does Open Source EMEP MSC-W model also present PM1 as PM01 and PM4 as PM04?
Makes sense if you're confirming to another standard, does Open Source EMEP MSC-W model also present PM1 as PM01 and PM4 as PM04?
It only has PM2.5 and PM10 outputs. Some of my colleagues have research versions with more detail but I do not know what they call the extra tracers.
... I could define
raw2_5
/pm2_5
as properties for all relevant PM sensors. Would this be sufficient?
What do you think about the raw2_5
/pm2_5
properties?
I think that's a good idea to give consistent names without making a breaking a change
I only pushed raw2_5
/pm2_5
properties, when I add them all the coverage goes under 95%...
I'll add some tests before pushing the rest
For
n
attributes, the numbers are consistent, with_
representing the decimal.For consistently and to make the numbers easier to understand, should the following change?