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

Remove Puget Sound data #33

Open
chantelwetzel-noaa opened this issue Nov 5, 2020 · 2 comments
Open

Remove Puget Sound data #33

chantelwetzel-noaa opened this issue Nov 5, 2020 · 2 comments
Assignees
Labels
priority: high The highest priority level in terms of what needs to be done. status: in progress Currently working on this issue topic: code Related to R code within this package type: refactor Changes to the codebase or documentation that do NOT alter the values returned, e.g., styling.
Milestone

Comments

@chantelwetzel-noaa
Copy link
Contributor

Data from Puget Sound, catches and bds, should be filtered out during the data pulling process. One way to identify Puget Sound data is to examine the PSMFC_CATCH_AREA_CODE where 4A, 70, and _PS codes indicate Puget Sound records. I determined this by examining the bds fields and should be verified to work on the catch data as well.

@kellijohnson-NOAA kellijohnson-NOAA added type: bug status: help wanted Help is needed topic: code Related to R code within this package priority: high The highest priority level in terms of what needs to be done. labels May 4, 2022
@kellijohnson-NOAA kellijohnson-NOAA added this to the year_2022 milestone May 4, 2022
@kellijohnson-NOAA
Copy link
Contributor

@chantelwetzel-noaa I think we settled on a compromise for this in that we would provide the data but write more verbose checks in cleanPacFIN() right?

@kellijohnson-NOAA kellijohnson-NOAA self-assigned this Feb 28, 2023
@chantelwetzel-noaa
Copy link
Contributor Author

I don't recall but I think you have convinced me that people may want to see these data and having an approach to provide them in the pull will support this. If we do include them and then add verbose messages in cleanPacFIN(), I think there should also be some level of communication that these data are included in the full data prior to cleaning. I can foresee people doing data exploration where cleanPacFIN() is not used could result in us having to field questions about the data. Perhaps we add this type of information to the data request form?

@kellijohnson-NOAA kellijohnson-NOAA modified the milestones: year_2022, year_2023 May 8, 2023
@kellijohnson-NOAA kellijohnson-NOAA added status: in progress Currently working on this issue type: refactor Changes to the codebase or documentation that do NOT alter the values returned, e.g., styling. labels May 9, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
priority: high The highest priority level in terms of what needs to be done. status: in progress Currently working on this issue topic: code Related to R code within this package type: refactor Changes to the codebase or documentation that do NOT alter the values returned, e.g., styling.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants