Feature/versioning line expansion #238
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Member
Author
|
This pull request corresponds with issue #209. |
|
Thanks! The idea of having the table in both schema was to use the model_draft in order to change the data -> sensitivity analysis / dev like the other ones. But maybe your right and we should remove it for a better organisation of this table. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I added the table model_draft.ego_grid_line_expansion_costs to the DP versioning. But I'm wondering if this is the right way to handle the versioning of this data set as it is not part of the actual dataprocessing. As far as I understand it is only an input table which does not need to be versioned in every dp run. Am I right?
If yes, I would suggest to store the data only in the grid schema and don't include it in the model_draft.