Closed WPringle closed 1 year ago
@SorooshMani-NOAA Don't understand why tests failing on this too. deleted all output files before running them on my end and all tests passed.
@WPringle let me test on my side as well and see what I get.
Update
@WPringle it seems the reason behind many of these failures is the updated version of pandas
(https://pandas.pydata.org/docs/whatsnew/v2.0.0.html). To be more specific:
and
- Change the default argument of regex for Series.str.replace() from True to False. Additionally, a single character pat with regex=True is now treated as a regular expression instead of a string literal. (GH36695, GH24804)
@WPringle we can either take care of these pandas
issues here, or we can first create a separate branch, fix the dependency issues, merge and then merge main into this branch and rerun tests.
@WPringle we can either take care of these
pandas
issues here, or we can first create a separate branch, fix the dependency issues, merge and then merge main into this branch and rerun tests.
Thanks for finding the problem. Maybe let's make the separate branch and fix these pandas
problems first. I am OK either way though.
OK, let me create a new branch on my machine and try to address it
@WPringle I noticed another part of the issue is actually the fact that right now the "realtime" (current year) list of storms returns empty and at least on of the tests fail due to that! I will try to find a better test for its replacement in the same branch that I'm fixing pandas dependency
@WPringle #79 fixes the pandas issue. After its merge, you can merge main
to your branch and retest
@WPringle is this pull request still relevant? I think I missed merging it before. In any case it runs into the same issue as I had with those two tests failing out of no where! I found out if I keep repeating (rerunning) the test enough they succeed! Please let me know if this should be merged or is no longer relevant. Thanks
@SorooshMani-NOAA We still need the fort.22 to fill in forecast_hours
column for the best-track, so yes I think still necessary.
Merging #76 (ad44fec) into main (197da88) will increase coverage by
0.14%
. The diff coverage is100.00%
.
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #76 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 91.18% 91.33% +0.14%
==========================================
Files 18 18
Lines 1872 1927 +55
==========================================
+ Hits 1707 1760 +53
- Misses 165 167 +2
Impacted Files | Coverage Δ | |
---|---|---|
stormevents/stormevent.py | 95.69% <ø> (ø) |
|
stormevents/nhc/track.py | 92.76% <100.00%> (+0.22%) |
:arrow_up: |
stormevents/usgs/base.py | 100.00% <100.00%> (ø) |
|
tests/test_nhc.py | 100.00% <100.00%> (ø) |
|
tests/test_stormevent.py | 100.00% <100.00%> (ø) |
The ADCIRC GAHM model and the
aswip
pre-processor tool requires theforecast_hours
to be non-zero in thefort.22
even for a best-track event (i.e., it doesn't read the datetime entries).Added functionality to output the non-zero forecast hours when the
VortexTrack.to_file()
function is used with.22
filename suffix andadvisory="BEST"
oradvisory=ATCF_Advisory.BEST
is called, e.g.,This function call is added to one of the tests for writing Florence to file. The corresponding reference file has been updated with the non-zero forecast hour entries.