You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Would it be feasible to add a "Pattern" mode to the target series options in the benchmarking specification field? Like this external constraints could be used (not just tranformations of the raw series), a Regex pattern may instruct the time-series provider how to pick up the constraint series. I'd be happy to contribute to the development, if you feel this is feasible, and does not stretch to much the possibilities of the current model.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Dear core team,
On further reflection it may be difficult to generalize this feature (I will try to make an OECD/provider- specific plugin). Although the "only" thing I would like to do is to extend the BenchmarkSpecification, and make sure that the constraint data is picked up from the same provider as the original data, it seems to me that I will have to go all the way up in the object tree and start re-writing the "MultiprocessingDocFileRepository", and then everything underneath. Let me know if you think there is a more economical entry point than this. I found a couple of objects/classes where my first idea was to just implement them in my alternate version, but they were lacking either public constructors or some key methods were not callable from outside the package (as they were not public), perhaps on purpose. Let me know if you have some time to discuss any of this. Thanks Gy.
Would it be feasible to add a "Pattern" mode to the target series options in the benchmarking specification field? Like this external constraints could be used (not just tranformations of the raw series), a Regex pattern may instruct the time-series provider how to pick up the constraint series. I'd be happy to contribute to the development, if you feel this is feasible, and does not stretch to much the possibilities of the current model.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: