Skip to content

Conversation

@mo-nikosbaltas
Copy link
Collaborator

@mo-nikosbaltas mo-nikosbaltas commented Dec 16, 2025

Closes #282.

PR creation checklist for the developer

  • Has <issue_number> above ☝️ been replaced with the issue number?
  • Has main been selected as the base branch?
  • Does the feature branch name follow the format <issue_number>_<short_description_of_feature>?
  • Does the text of the PR title exactly match with the text (not including the issue number) of the issue title?
  • Have appropriate reviewers been added to the PR (once it is ready for review)?
  • Has the PR been assigned to the developer(s)?
  • Have the same labels as on the issue (except for the good first issue label) been added to the PR?
  • Has the Climate Model Evaluation Workflow (CMEW) project been added to the PR?
  • Has the appropriate milestone been added to the PR?

Definition of Done for the developer

  • Does the change in this PR address the above issue / have all acceptance criteria been met?
  • Does the change in this PR follow the requirements in the wiki: Developer Guide (including copyrights)?
  • Have new tests related to the change been added?
  • Do all the GitHub workflow checks pass?
  • Do all the tests run locally and pass? (Note: the tests are not run by the GitHub workflow, see wiki: Run the tests locally)
  • Has the API documentation (e.g. docstrings in Python modules) related to the change been updated appropriately?
  • Has the user documentation (i.e. everything in the doc directory) related to the change been updated appropriately, including the Quick Start section?
  • Do the HTML pages render correctly? (See wiki: Build the documentation locally)

PR creation checklist for the reviewer

  • Has <issue_number> above ☝️ been replaced with the issue number?
  • Has main been selected as the base branch?
  • Does the feature branch name follow the format <issue_number>_<short_description_of_feature>?
  • Does the text of the PR title exactly match with the text (not including the issue number) of the issue title?
  • Have appropriate reviewers been added to the PR (once it is ready for review)?
  • Has the PR been assigned to the developer(s)?
  • Have the same labels as on the issue (except for the good first issue label) been added to the PR?
  • Has the Climate Model Evaluation Workflow (CMEW) project been added to the PR?
  • Has the appropriate milestone been added to the PR?

Definition of Done for the reviewer

  • Does the change in this PR address the above issue / have all acceptance criteria been met?
  • Does the change in this PR follow the requirements in the wiki: Developer Guide (including copyrights)?
  • Have new tests related to the change been added?
  • Do all the GitHub workflow checks pass?
  • Do all the tests run locally and pass? (Note: the tests are not run by the GitHub workflow, see wiki: Run the tests locally)
  • Has the API documentation (e.g. docstrings in Python modules) related to the change been updated appropriately?
  • Has the user documentation (i.e. everything in the doc directory) related to the change been updated appropriately, including the Quick Start section?
  • Do the HTML pages render correctly? (See wiki: Build the documentation locally)

@mo-nikosbaltas mo-nikosbaltas linked an issue Dec 16, 2025 that may be closed by this pull request
@mo-nikosbaltas mo-nikosbaltas self-assigned this Dec 16, 2025
@mo-nikosbaltas mo-nikosbaltas added enhancement New feature or request standardise Anything related to CDDS testing Anything related to testing labels Dec 16, 2025
Copy link
Collaborator

@NParsonsMO NParsonsMO left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm still working through the actual code changes, but have commented on some copyright stuff (and didn't want to lose this progress over lunch).

DRS_OBS6="default"
ESMVALTOOL_MODULE_NAME=""
EXTRACT=true
EXTRACT_DATA_PATH=""
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Maybe it's me, but I think this is actually more like "EXTANT_DATA_PATH", or something about "previously extracted".
"[To] extract" sounds like a command.

@NParsonsMO
Copy link
Collaborator

NParsonsMO commented Dec 17, 2025

Does the text of the PR title exactly match with the text (not including the issue number) of the issue title?

Not exactly but very close (Nikos changed that)

Does the change in this PR address the above issue / have all acceptance criteria been met?

I don't feel qualified to say (Nikos: If you run the unit tests, they should complete successfully. Also, try all three cases (ACs) on your terminal with -O metoffice -O unittest, and should run for the different settings)

Does the change in this PR follow the requirements in the wiki: Developer Guide (including copyrights)?

I've ticked this as I think it does

Has the API documentation (e.g. docstrings in Python modules) related to the change been updated appropriately?

I've ticked this as I agree it didn't need to change

Has the user documentation (i.e. everything in the doc directory) related to the change been updated appropriately, including the Quick Start section?
Do the HTML pages render correctly? (See wiki: Build the documentation locally)

Nothing in doc has changed so I haven't ticked these

@mo-nikosbaltas mo-nikosbaltas changed the title #282 Enabled switching of CDDS extract and expanded unit tests #282 Enable-switching-off-CDDS-extract Dec 17, 2025
@alistairsellar alistairsellar changed the title #282 Enable-switching-off-CDDS-extract Enable-switching-off-CDDS-extract Dec 18, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

enhancement New feature or request standardise Anything related to CDDS testing Anything related to testing

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Enable switching off CDDS extract

3 participants