Skip to content

Test adding metopa and metopb as placeholder drafts to stac database #426

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

Merged
merged 28 commits into from
Jul 11, 2025

Conversation

shmh40
Copy link
Contributor

@shmh40 shmh40 commented Jul 1, 2025

Description

Adding MHS on Metop-A and B to the STAC database, and Fengyun 3 MWHS, and ABI-GOES.

Type of Change

  • Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
  • Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
  • Documentation update

Issue Number

Fixes #427

Code Compatibility

  • I have performed a self-review of my code

Code Performance and Testing

  • I ran the uv run train and (if necessary) uv run evaluate on a least one GPU node and it works
  • If the new feature introduces modifications at the config level, I have made sure to have notified the other software developers through Mattermost and updated the paths in the $WEATHER_GENERATOR_PRIVATE directory

Dependencies

  • I have ensured that the code is still pip-installable after the changes and runs
  • I have tested that new dependencies themselves are pip-installable.
  • I have not introduced new dependencies in the inference portion of the pipeline

Documentation

  • My code follows the style guidelines of this project
  • I have updated the documentation and docstrings to reflect the changes
  • I have added comments to my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas

Additional Notes

@shmh40 shmh40 requested a review from iluise July 1, 2025 17:58
@shmh40
Copy link
Contributor Author

shmh40 commented Jul 1, 2025

Hey @iluise - this is very rough, I will fill in all the actual details/fix titles etc. - but looks ok to you?

@shmh40 shmh40 self-assigned this Jul 2, 2025
@shmh40 shmh40 added the datasets Anything related to the datasets used in the project label Jul 2, 2025
{
"href": "https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ecmwf/WeatherGenerator/refs/heads/shmh40/dev/stac_test/stac/jsons/metopa.json",
"rel": "child",
"title": "metopa",
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

can we have the title capital as all the others?

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Let's follow OSCAR's naming: https://space.oscar.wmo.int/satellites/view/metop_a, i.e. METOP-A

{
"href": "https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ecmwf/WeatherGenerator/refs/heads/shmh40/dev/stac_test/stac/jsons/metopb.json",
"rel": "child",
"title": "metopb",
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

same here

type: 'application/vnd+netcdf',
description: 'Observation dataset',
locations: [common.hpc.hpc2020, common.hpc.jsc],
size: '0.5 TB',
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

can we have it in GB? is this compressed?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes currently compressed - shall I unzip them on ATOS? I guess we are ok for inodes now?

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes, we have plenty of space/inodes you can untar them there, thanks!

description: 'Observation dataset',
locations: [common.hpc.hpc2020, common.hpc.jsc],
size: '0.5 TB',
inodes: '10',
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

this is tarred for the moment I assume, we should update it once we untar them

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think we should only report in the form ready for training, i.e. leave empty otherwise.

@@ -48,7 +48,7 @@
],
"type": "Polygon"
},
"id": "weathergen.atmo.metopa",
"id": "weathergen.atmo.METOP-A",
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think this is METOP-A, AMSU-A. The METOP-A platform (satellite) has quite a number of instruments: https://space.oscar.wmo.int/satellites/view/metop_b

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ok, it's from the MHS instrument

@@ -48,7 +48,7 @@
],
"type": "Polygon"
},
"id": "weathergen.atmo.metopb",
"id": "weathergen.atmo.METOP-B",
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Same as above, distinguish platform and instrument

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Shall we just have the main name/title as the instrument, and then the datasets from the 2 different satellites are given as different assets of the same instrument?

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Let's keep it separate. We can merge at the stream level (this is why a stream can have multiple sources).

@shmh40 shmh40 marked this pull request as ready for review July 8, 2025 10:09
@iluise
Copy link
Collaborator

iluise commented Jul 9, 2025

Hi, it looks good to me! I added ABI-GOES as well. @shmh40 if it looks good for you then can you prepare the final develop version so you get to try the whole pipeline? :)

@shmh40 shmh40 requested a review from iluise July 11, 2025 09:18
@iluise iluise merged commit ee6e757 into develop Jul 11, 2025
3 checks passed
@iluise iluise deleted the shmh40/dev/stac_test branch July 11, 2025 09:31
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
datasets Anything related to the datasets used in the project
Projects
Status: Done
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Add METOPA, B, FY3, to STAC database
3 participants