Issue #517 Added new columns for the VCNT, VL1L2, VAL1L2, and ECNT li…

[bikegeek]

…netypes

Pull Request Testing

• [x] Describe testing already performed for these changes:
  

• Created a local docker container for METviewer changes (feature_517_ecnt_vl1l2_val1l2_vcnt)

• Loaded sample data from the MET regression tests for point_stat and ensemble_stat into mariadb in container

• [ ] Recommend testing for the reviewer(s) to perform, including the location of input datasets, and any additional instructions:
  

• [x] Do these changes include sufficient documentation updates, ensuring that no errors or warnings exist in the build of the documentation? [NA]

• [x] Do these changes include sufficient testing updates? [NA]

• [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] Do these changes introduce new SonarQube findings? [No]
  If yes, please describe:

• [ ] Please complete this pull request review by by August 22.
  

Pull Request Checklist

See the METplus Workflow for details.

• [ ] 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) and Development issue Select: Milestone as the version that will include these changes Select: Coordinated METplus-X.Y Support project for bugfix releases or METviewer-X.Y.Z Development project for official releases
• [ ] 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.

[michelleharrold]

@bikegeek -- I reviewed the PR, and everything I looked at looks good!

Before approving, do we need to be concerned with the failed SonarQube scan (related Duplicated Lines (%) on New Code)? If not, I will approve ASAP!

[jprestop]

@michelleharrold and @bikegeek Let's discuss "failed SonarQube scan (related Duplicated Lines (%) on New Code)" at the meeting today. @bikegeek We'll be sure to update the notes with our discussion in case you're unable to make the meeting.

[michelleharrold]

Based on the discussion in the meeting, we do not need to address the code duplication issues, so we are good to go!

[michelleharrold]

@bikegeek and @jprestop -- I do not have write access, so my review is not sufficient! Can I be allowed or write access (if not, totally fine, but then we will need another reviewer!)

[jprestop]

@michelleharrold Ah! Thanks for letting us know. Please refresh and give it another try.