review of units excuses #2701
turbomam
started this conversation in
Show and tell
Replies: 2 comments
-
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
-
|
Put in a separate PR to change anything that doesn't have a storage unit to not be a QV |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
@mslarae13 (Montana) reviewed 18 slots in units/output/schema_units_excuses.tsv and added two columns with detailed analysis:
Her Key Recommendations Were Captured in Multiple Places:
storage_unitsannotations for the slots that were reviewed in PR #2653 #2686: "add storage_units annotations for the slots that were reviewed in PR Evaluate slot excuses for UCUM #2653"storage-unitssolutions for slots with excuses #2687: "non-storage-units solutions for slots with excuses"typeslot on NEON classes #1066: "efficiency_percent gives mixed messages about the preferred units"typeslot assertion on planned NEON process classes and processed sample #1067: "rel_humidity_out implies that the preferred units are just masses of air"categories
storage-unitssolutions for slots with excuses #2687 comments: Your comments include detailed tables tracking the status of each of her recommendationsHer Specific Insights (from the PR diff):
Current Status (from Issue #2687):
✅ Fully Addressed (9 slots):
⏳ Still Requiring Attention (7 slots):
typeslot on NEON classes #1066typeslot assertion on planned NEON process classes and processed sample #1067Conclusion: Her insights were thoroughly captured and documented across issues #2686, #2687, PRs #2689, #2690, MIxS issues #1066 and #1067, and the comprehensive
units/docs/units-problems-definitive.md documentation file.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions