Feature 2463 modify table

lisagoodrich commented 5 months ago

Pull Request Testing

[x] Describe testing already performed for these changes:
1. The original section/table was listed in the overview as 1.5. METplus Components Python Requirements. This section was REMOVED and added to the appendix, [12.2 METplus Components Python Packages] (https://metplus.readthedocs.io/en/feature_2463_modify_table/Users_Guide/appendixA.html#metplus-components-python-packages)
2. The table has been swapped out for drop-down menus for readability. This was reviewed by @jprestop , @georgemccabe and @DanielAdriaansen to make sure this was an improvement over the table. (It is an improvement.)
3. The "METplus Wrappers" language has been changed for clarity to "Select METplus Use Cases". Except for the python3.10.4 + and dateutil >= ` 2.8.2 drop-downs, where "METplus Wrappers" is the correct description.
4. Since the table was removed from the overview, a new label needed to be created to refer to the new dropdown menu section, 'components_python_packages'. This is referred to in the add_use_case.rst file under the Contributor's Guide section.
5. To keep the version numbers up to date, two new entries were added to "rst_epilog" in the conf.py file: python_version and met_version
[x] Recommend testing for the reviewer(s) to perform, including the location of input datasets, and any additional instructions:
Please review for any anomalies, such as wrong information, incorrect usage of "METplus Wrappers" or "Select METplus Use Cases."

Here is the link: [12.2 METplus Components Python Packages] (https://metplus.readthedocs.io/en/feature_2463_modify_table/Users_Guide/appendixA.html#metplus-components-python-packages)

From discussing this with @georgemccabe at the METplus engineering meeting, some changes should be made to item 5 above. George has a more elegant way to do this so that the versions can be updated in one place.

[x] Do these changes include sufficient documentation updates, ensuring that no errors or warnings exist in the build of the documentation? [Yes]
[x] Do these changes include sufficient testing updates? [Yes]
[x] Will this PR result in changes to the test suite? [No]
If yes, describe the new output and/or changes to the existing output:
[x] Please complete this pull request review by [3/1/24].

Pull Request Checklist

See the METplus Workflow for details.

[ ] Add any new Python packages to the METplus Components Python Requirements table.
[ ] Review the source issue metadata (required labels, projects, and milestone).
[ ] Complete the PR definition above.
[ ] Ensure the PR title matches the feature or bugfix branch name.
[ ] Define the PR metadata, as permissions allow. Select: Reviewer(s) Select: Organization level software support Project or Repository level development cycle Project Select: Milestone as the version that will include these changes
[ ] After submitting the PR, select the :gear: icon in the Development section of the right hand sidebar. Search for the issue that this PR will close and select it, if it is not already selected.
[ ] After the PR is approved, merge your changes. If permissions do not allow this, request that the reviewer do the merge.
[ ] Close the linked issue and delete your feature or bugfix branch from GitHub.

coveralls commented 4 months ago

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 8086746303

Details

0 of 1 (100.0%) changed or added relevant line in 1 file are covered.
No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
Overall coverage increased (+0.001%) to 90.987%

Totals
Change from base Build 7922501116:	0.001%
Covered Lines:	8591
Relevant Lines:	9442

💛 - Coveralls

lisagoodrich commented 4 months ago

Okay, @georgemccabe, I did my best to create an issue to Automate the MET version number update #2509. Please feel free to edit the issue. I did my best but I don't always get the details right.

Is this issue ready to be squashed and merged?

georgemccabe commented 4 months ago

Thanks, @lisagoodrich. We changed the PR settings to require a re-review when changes are made after approval, so Dan or I will need to approve it again before we can merge.

We are testing out Slack reminders for open PRs, so I am going to hold off on approving to ensure that the reminder comes in tomorrow AM. Once I confirm that, I can review and merge this. Thanks again for working on this and creating the new issue.

jprestop commented 4 months ago

@georgemccabe I just wanted to follow up on this PR. You previously said:

We are testing out Slack reminders for open PRs, so I am going to hold off on approving to ensure that the reminder comes in tomorrow AM. Once I confirm that, I can review and merge this. Thanks again for working on this and creating the new issue.

georgemccabe commented 4 months ago

Hi @jprestop, thanks for following up on this. I have been working on other projects lately, but I did send @JohnHalleyGotway a Slack message related to this:

It triggered and send a reminder for Tina's PR, but it did not send one for Lisa's. It could be because Dan reviewed/approved it, but the PR is still blocked to merge until a re-review since we require a new review after new commits after a review. Sounds like feedback to provide to GitHub to improve it!

I can approve and merge this now.

dtcenter / METplus