Skip to content

Conversation

@keflavich
Copy link
Contributor

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

keflavich and others added 9 commits November 7, 2025 15:24
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
@keflavich
Copy link
Contributor Author

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.

@bsipocz
Copy link
Member

bsipocz commented Nov 8, 2025

What about ditching async to sync? I have my doubts it ever worked in a real async way

@keflavich
Copy link
Contributor Author

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

@keflavich
Copy link
Contributor Author

(also most of the problems I'm experiencing here are because the SPCAT format is extraordinarily arcane and has dozens of undocumented edge cases....)

@bsipocz
Copy link
Member

bsipocz commented Nov 8, 2025

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.

@keflavich
Copy link
Contributor Author

right, good point. OK, I'll think about that - once I get out of qn-parsing hell

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Nov 9, 2025

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 79.73422% with 61 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 70.86%. Comparing base (91fad25) to head (ad16c89).
⚠️ Report is 3 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
astroquery/linelists/jplspec/core.py 82.02% 32 Missing ⚠️
astroquery/linelists/cdms/core.py 72.16% 27 Missing ⚠️
astroquery/linelists/core.py 91.66% 1 Missing ⚠️
astroquery/linelists/jplspec/setup_package.py 0.00% 1 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #3456      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   70.72%   70.86%   +0.13%     
==========================================
  Files         232      235       +3     
  Lines       20041    20209     +168     
==========================================
+ Hits        14174    14321     +147     
- Misses       5867     5888      +21     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@keflavich keflavich marked this pull request as ready for review November 9, 2025 21:05
@keflavich
Copy link
Contributor Author

I had an LLM write some of the tests to increase coverage. I reviewed those tests, and they look right, but I'm not certain. I can say that they revealed genuine bugs that I had to fix, so that was good.

@keflavich
Copy link
Contributor Author

#3302 and #3455 should be merged before this one, and then this one needs squashing.

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants