Replies: 1 comment 6 replies
-
Also, it may worthwhile to consider inferring the name from the block itself anyway, right? However, I am not sure if there are any conflicting issues or complications to do with that. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
6 replies
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
-
I encountered what I thought was counterintuitive behavior in the following code (also quoted below for convenience).
By asking for
reference_data_path
in a model-vs-model block, a noob like me might think the actual.nc
data, e.g.,${CASE_ROOT}/post/atm/180x360_aave/clim/
for the[[ atm_monthly_180x360_aave ]]
block. It turns out this noob tendency was partly anticipated by the developers and was handled by the code by trimming at/post
(and adding it again). However, this will fail if thegrid
is not supplied — which in this noob's case, it was definitely missing 😵💫Anyway, this got me to make a gentle low-priority suggestion: It could be more informative to rename this variable (while keeping backward compatibility) as something like
refernece_model_path
orreference_case_path
for the model-vs-model cases.Thank you for the great work!
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions