Skip to content
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鈥檒l occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Incorrect LBLEV in pp save rules for surface fields. #3820

Open
hdyson opened this issue Sep 7, 2020 · 6 comments 路 May be fixed by #5734
Open

Incorrect LBLEV in pp save rules for surface fields. #3820

hdyson opened this issue Sep 7, 2020 · 6 comments 路 May be fixed by #5734
Assignees

Comments

@hdyson
Copy link
Contributor

hdyson commented Sep 7, 2020

馃悰 Bug Report

Iris pp save rules result in a LBLEV of 0 for a surface field (i.e. all the non-zero values are gated behind a check for a vertical coordinate: https://github.com/SciTools/iris/blob/master/lib/iris/fileformats/pp_save_rules.py#L653 ). F03, however, specifies a value of 9999 for surface fields: https://code.metoffice.gov.uk/doc/um/latest/papers/umdp_F03.pdf#page=27 In Ants, we rely on the pp save rules to set this value as we translate a cube into mule fields for saving ancillaries. We will put in a workaround in Ants to set this ourselves for an immediate fix, but it would be good if this could be fixed upstream.

How To Reproduce

Steps to reproduce the behaviour:

  1. Use iris to load a surface field (e.g. SST or orography)
  2. Save the surface field as pp file.
  3. Inspect lookup header with e.g. mule-pumf --headers-only filename.pp | grep 'lblev'

Expected behaviour

LBLEV value of 9999 for surface fields.

Environment

  • Iris Version: 2.3
@bjlittle
Copy link
Member

bjlittle commented Sep 8, 2020

@hdyson Thanks for taking the time to report this, much appreciated.

We're in the process of finalising iris 3.0.0rc0, and a fix for this might or might not make it across the line, given where we're at.

Note that, we won't be releasing a back-ported patch for iris 2.x, so this fix will only be available in python 3+ and iris >=3

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

In order to maintain a backlog of relevant issues, we automatically label them as stale after 500 days of inactivity.

If this issue is still important to you, then please comment on this issue and the stale label will be removed.

Otherwise this issue will be automatically closed in 28 days time.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the Stale A stale issue/pull-request label Jan 22, 2022
@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

This stale issue has been automatically closed due to a lack of community activity.

If you still care about this issue, then please either:

  • Re-open this issue, if you have sufficient permissions, or
  • Add a comment pinging @SciTools/iris-devs who will re-open on your behalf.

@estherturner
Copy link

Would it be possible for this issue to be re-opened, please? @SciTools/iris-devs

@trexfeathers trexfeathers reopened this Feb 21, 2022
@trexfeathers trexfeathers removed the Stale A stale issue/pull-request label Feb 21, 2022
@trexfeathers
Copy link
Contributor

I believe this is one on @tkknight's list for allocating time to fix.

@bjlittle bjlittle removed their assignment Sep 7, 2022
Copy link
Contributor

In order to maintain a backlog of relevant issues, we automatically label them as stale after 500 days of inactivity.

If this issue is still important to you, then please comment on this issue and the stale label will be removed.

Otherwise this issue will be automatically closed in 28 days time.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the Stale A stale issue/pull-request label Jan 21, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot removed the Stale A stale issue/pull-request label Jan 25, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
Status: No status
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

6 participants