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’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

CF valid units that are not in UDUNITS #30

Closed
mhidas opened this issue Jul 6, 2015 · 14 comments
Closed

CF valid units that are not in UDUNITS #30

mhidas opened this issue Jul 6, 2015 · 14 comments
Assignees

Comments

@mhidas
Copy link

mhidas commented Jul 6, 2015

The CF FAQ page says:

There are two units acceptable to CF that are not in the UDUNITS library: sverdrup, and decibel or dB. These have been requested for inclusion in future versions of the UDUNITS library.

Looks like "sverdrup" is already in UDUNITS-2. "decibel" and "dB" are not. There is an open request to add it (Unidata/UDUNITS-2#33), but the discussion there suggests this may not be possible in a generic way, i.e. without specifying a reference value.

Would it be possible to get cf_units to recognise "dB" and "decibel" (as effectively dimensionless units), independently of UDUNITS?

@ocefpaf
Copy link
Member

ocefpaf commented Jul 6, 2015

Thanks for reporting this @mhidas.

cf_units goal is to be CF compliant, so we should try to include those. I will see what we can do and get back to you.

@rhattersley
Copy link
Member

FYI, @hasselldc ships a modified UDUNITS database in cf-python.

@ocefpaf
Copy link
Member

ocefpaf commented Jul 7, 2015

Thanks @rhattersley! I will take a look and, if possible, push it upstream to UDUNITS-2.

@ocefpaf
Copy link
Member

ocefpaf commented Jan 6, 2016

  • level
  • layer
  • sigma_level
  • decibel, dB

@pelson pelson modified the milestone: v1.1.0 Jan 6, 2016
@ocefpaf
Copy link
Member

ocefpaf commented Mar 5, 2016

Note to self: Unidata/UDUNITS-2#42

@ocefpaf ocefpaf self-assigned this Mar 5, 2016
@mhidas
Copy link
Author

mhidas commented Dec 18, 2017

Has there been any progress on this issue?

I don't think any of these units will make it into UDUNITS any time soon, if the (lack of) activity in those issue threads (Unidata/UDUNITS-2#33, Unidata/UDUNITS-2#42) is anything to go by.

@pelson
Copy link
Member

pelson commented Jan 3, 2018

Has there been any progress on this issue?

It doesn't appear so. Unidata/UDUNITS-2#42 does look promising. Adding custom udunits definitions is also an option. Given the relevance of the CF documentation, if you have a proposal for moving this forwards without adding significant complexity to cf_units then I can't see that it would be a problem to merge.

@mhidas
Copy link
Author

mhidas commented Jan 3, 2018

Thanks @pelson . I've commented on that UDUNITS PR to see if there's a chance of getting it merged. If there's no response I'll look into proposing a solution here.

@trexfeathers
Copy link
Collaborator

@ocefpaf sorry for gravedigging but Unidata/UDUNITS-2#42 was finally merged last year. Any thoughts on this issue?

@ocefpaf
Copy link
Member

ocefpaf commented Jun 29, 2022

We can backport it as a patch but I'd rather ask upstream for a new release. The latest one is https://github.com/Unidata/UDUNITS-2/releases/tag/v2.2.27.27 from Nov 20, 2020 and that PR (from 2016!) was merged on Mar 17, 2021.

@stephenworsley
Copy link
Contributor

It looks like the last release was Feb 1st 2022 but this was not tagged Unidata/UDUNITS-2#104. So it looks like this ought to be in a released version.

@larsbarring
Copy link
Contributor

Please note that the CF FAQ text referred to in the opening comment is not up to date.

@scitools-ci scitools-ci bot removed this from 🚴 Peloton Dec 15, 2023
@trexfeathers
Copy link
Collaborator

trexfeathers commented Dec 20, 2023

From @SciTools/peloton, can this be:

A: closed?
B: progressed?
C: re-assigned if @ocefpaf is busy?

@ocefpaf
Copy link
Member

ocefpaf commented Dec 20, 2023

I had no idea it was assigned to me :-)
I vote for A and, if folks really need this, someone will re-open the issue and/or send a PR. My guess is that most downstream Software that requires these units end up patching and/or adding them via a custom xml file.

@trexfeathers trexfeathers closed this as not planned Won't fix, can't repro, duplicate, stale Jan 3, 2024
@scitools-ci scitools-ci bot removed this from 🚴 Peloton Feb 1, 2024
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

No branches or pull requests

7 participants