-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 424
Refactor JPLSpec/CDMS to bring common code up a level #3456
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
fix bad file add fix ****s
…; fix CDMS quantum numbers parsing 1) Adding support for CDMS queries with lines of all species 2) Fixing the CMDS lines list parsing Support CDMS all species option; fix format for CDMS linelist reading; fix CDMS quantum numbers parsing Adding test for a new functionality when all species are requested from CDMS fix parse_letternumber test and rearrange and refactor new test expand test coverage and resolve some problems discovered as a result propagate column change down trivial formatting fix my refactor; it was incorrect oops, fix to last one (yes, this needs to be squashed; pushing fast to skip tests... and spam my inbox...) add ch3cn test and shift QNFMT by one cleanup molwt/tag parsing shift tag back one spot. Fix tests to accommodate more complete "tag" name add the b1 = -21 test whitespace fix ch3cn test; it had decayed into ch3ccd which has different QNs add changelog improve error message for bad molecule parsing fix the next part of the test address review comments
|
My hacking has hit an awkward position. I wanted to implement a fallback-to-getmolecule approach, but this made me realize that the async-to-sync method prevents returning non-response results and prevents passing arguments directly to _parse_response. Both of these make the workaround a lot more awkward. There are a couple other approaches I could take, but I really want this fallback because of the unreliability of JPLspec and the hinted-at fragility of other services. |
|
What about ditching async to sync? I have my doubts it ever worked in a real async way |
|
yeah, I can get onboard with that. It's a big refactor, but not that hard. That said, I'd need to feel quite inspired / have little on my plate to want to take that on myself. I think it is not the tallest nail right now |
|
(also most of the problems I'm experiencing here are because the SPCAT format is extraordinarily arcane and has dozens of undocumented edge cases....) |
|
Of, I don't mean to refactor the machinery, but feel free to cut the usage of it. We don't use it in the vo backed modules anyway, so it's more like a slow cleanup rather than one big push. |
|
right, good point. OK, I'll think about that - once I get out of qn-parsing hell |
Codecov Report❌ Patch coverage is Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #3456 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 70.72% 70.57% -0.15%
==========================================
Files 232 235 +3
Lines 20041 20215 +174
==========================================
+ Hits 14174 14267 +93
- Misses 5867 5948 +81 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
WIP. I'm not as sure as I was at the start of this project that there is enough in common, but maybe.
This relies on other open PRs, so it's staying Draft for now