Trasect comparison #6
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
* RDI reader, logging, duty cycle motion correction * Updates * Force float32 datatype * Docstring formatting * Change 'default' docstring default * Remove old comments
browniea
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 19, 2024
* fix assignment in type_handling * temporary testing file * initial conversion of energy_period and frequency_moment to DataArray * energy_period working with variety of types and converting to dataArray base * extend xr.dataarray basis to all wave.resource functions * remove testing script * black formatting * fix most test formatting * use dataarrays instead of datasets in wave.performance * revert surface_elevation function back to datasets * Revert "revert surface_elevation function back to datasets" This reverts commit a2d5f61. * allow datasets, 2d dataframes. Update test formatting appropriately * simplify and improve robustness of convert_to_dataarray for 1-var dataframes and 2+ var datasets * update test formatting * clean up frequency_bin and method checks in elevation_surface * update and annotate type_handling * black formatting * minor type fix * update type references in loads * update type references in loads - v2 * black formatting * fix call to fillna() in MLER example * fix references to k in MLER example * add variable names to Hm0, Te, and Tp for DataFrame creation * update pd.Series naming in examples * fix typo in pacwave notebook * add variable names after data conversion * update pacwave example * add type check to all wave.resource variable naming * update wave example with new data types * pull buoy name from metadata in cdip example * tighten up example timing * address minor review comments, add some type checking tests * complicated dataset and dataframe handling in surface_elevation and elevation_spectrum * restore and simplify dataset input to elevation_spectrum, surface_elevation * black formatting * update missed docstring * use np.nan_to_num correctly in test_loads * Speed up wave (#6) * matplotlib >=3.8 * remove debug --------- Co-authored-by: ssolson <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Emily great job on your improvements from yesterday. Up top I made some clean up suggestions for language and added some TODOs.
Working on your idealized transect downsample section I added some plots that I think you can improve your analysis from.
On the downsampling of the x,y transect you did this perfect. I added a graphic to show the user what you did
However you did not actually downsample the depth values. I fixed that in the current PR. You can additionally see that I added the river depth to the plot. From this, I would suggest that you do not use the range of the ADCP but the range of the river bed. What are your thoughts?
Edit: Actually I suggest a combination, the max of the ADCP but a min from the riverbed (assuming a negative down referenceframe)
Let's focus on doing the best analysis we can here and not what we submitted. Any changes we do will still be best for the paper.