Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Outstanding technical changes to regridding code #1464

Open
fionaRust opened this issue May 13, 2021 · 3 comments
Open

Outstanding technical changes to regridding code #1464

fionaRust opened this issue May 13, 2021 · 3 comments
Assignees

Comments

@fionaRust
Copy link
Contributor

fionaRust commented May 13, 2021

This ticket records outstanding technical changes that we want to make to the regridding code following #1438. Some of these points may require discussion or clarification before implementation.

@fionaRust
Copy link
Contributor Author

fionaRust commented May 13, 2021

Tasks from Fiona. I've highlighted which ones I would like to review, and the rest could be reviewed by others if I'm not available.

  • Remove hard coded geoid and instead take information from Iris cube: If you pass in the input cube you can access the coordinate system by doing coord_system = cube.coord("latitude").coord_system If it has the correct metadata I think it should return an iris.coord_systems.GeogCS instance ( https://scitools-iris.readthedocs.io/en/stable/generated/api/iris/coord_systems.html#iris.coord_systems.GeogCS) that should have attributes you can interrogate to find all the geiod information. You can always default to WGS84 parameters if you don't find any on the cube.
  • Consider adding more unit tests at the function level. Fiona to review
  • Understand the use case for cube_in_mask and the cube_in being different resolutions. If not necessary tidy up the code appropriately. Fiona to review/discuss
  • Consider updating the bilinear acceptance test to show it gives the same answer as the old bilinear method.

@anja-bom
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @fionaRust it looks like there is outstanding work here to do, is there anything you're waiting on BOM to do here?

@fionaRust
Copy link
Contributor Author

@anja-bom we're not waiting for it and I think we realised a long time about that this was unlikely to get done. I've linked it to our own ticket for deciding whether to use these methods in our suite, which might include revisiting some of the things on this ticket. Hopefully this means it doesn't get forgotten if we decide to go further with it at some point.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants