adding qual_f_b to lake output in Hydrocron?

[merrittharlan]

I was wondering if it would be possible to add qual_f_b to the output of Hydrocron for the lake features? This might be a new feature for the lake data, so perhaps it will automatically be added in the future, but figured I would express support for it.

Separately, I was wondering if partial_f is a valid output for the node data? It is listed as a possible variable in the Hydrocron timeseries documentation, but perhaps that flag is just for reach/lake data. When I try to include it in Hydrocron output, I get a response code 500. Thank you!

[torimcd]

Thanks for raising this @merrittharlan, I see qual_f_b in the latest CRID=PIC2 lake shapefiles, but it's not in the earlier PIC0 files. We'll need to think about how we handle the available fields changing within the same collection version. I don't see an obvious way to handle both:
a. being able to validate that the fields the user entered are valid fields (which allows us to return an error if there's a typo), and
b. returning a field that exists in some of the observation record but not the full time series. Until there's a reprocessing campaign, that field will be 'valid' for only some of the granules.

We'll discuss further with the team about what our options might be here, but also curious what you're preferred/expected behavior is if you list qual_f_b as a return field but the time range includes granules that don't have this field?

For the other issue with partial_f in nodes - I do see that field in the node shapefiles so we should be returning it through Hydrocron. There's a similiar issue that we're looking at with the granule name field in #254, it's possible they're related so I'll add a note about partial_f there so we can figure out why it would be causing the 500 error.