Upgrade/product formatting #89
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is looking really good -- I added comments suggesting we should add an explanation of how we structure the product version number.
Also, you still need to remove the "c" collection number indicator from the get_odc_product_name function. For collection 0, our product names should be:
ga_s1_nrb_iw_hh_0
ga_s1_nrb_iw_vv_vh_0
ga_s1_nrb_iw_hh_hv_0
ga_s1_nrb_iw_vv_0
ga_s1_nrb_iw_static_0
| processing_type: NOMINAL | ||
|
|
||
| product_version: | ||
| product_version: 0.1.0 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we add a comment that describes how the product version is organised? e.g. <collection_number>.<minor_version>.<patch_version>?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yep good idea, I'll a comment above. Will also make a note to add to release notes.
| processing_type: NOMINAL | ||
|
|
||
| product_version: | ||
| product_version: 0.1.0 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As above, it might be worth adding a comment to explain the structure of the product version number
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Added, and will raise warning if not consistent with the collection number set at runtime
|
@caitlinadams changes made to remove the 'c' from the odc product name. Also added the warning if the collection number isn't consistent across files. Should be good to merge if you want to check my last commit. |
2 participants
old nrb products:
new nrb products:
old nrb-static
new nrb-static
