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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
BUG: ENH: update spa_files to patch timezone bug #576
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
BUG: ENH: update spa_files to patch timezone bug #576
Changes from 1 commit
3e6af01
cf730ca
7ab8b64
1b4a73c
e2232f1
feb1f36
162e712
d04dc51
78e4067
05f4e45
8298871
44c2037
e33c8f3
83e5e5d
3bde113
fcf5ca4
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
http://www.nrel.gov/midc/spa forwards to https://midcdmz.nrel.gov/
looks like https://midcdmz.nrel.gov/spa/ is now the correct url
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm concerned about adding this feature. Can we really say this and wash our hands of the license issue? I would be surprised. I'd believe we're in the clear if we pulled the license text, printed it, and waited for the user to input
y
.Also not clear to me how this is supposed to work (or not work) with the spa related code in the root setup.py
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
(by this feature I mean the auto-download capability)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
but the LICENSED code is not being distributed with pvlib, so I don't see the concern?
I guess we can do that
AFAIK there's no difference, everything is exactly the same way it was before. The user has to follow the instructions in the README. If they want to use the SPA C-files, then they need to somehow enter this folder and run
it's the only way to build it, and by doing this act, then implicitly agree to the license. If they don't want to use the SPA C-files they do nothing. AFAIK the rest of pvlib still works exactly the way it always did, what's different?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Maybe. But I don't want NREL to think "Holmgren, Mikofski, and the rest of those ^&*( pvlib-ers snaked their way around our license."
If we support automatic download, I'd also want a user to be required to input the form information rather than it being supplied as "pvlib-python" etc. NREL is presumably asking for this information from each user in order to justify funding to DOE. Putting a placeholder there doesn't seem right, regardless of whether we agree with NREL's strategy here or not.
The root setup.py compiles the extension if the files were detected during a
pip install .
orpython setup.py
. Or at least it used to -- it's been years since I tried. Perhaps it's best to remove the capability of the root setup.py to do anything with this extension.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
great idea, okay, it now asks for users name, and sends that, if no name, then it fails with some ugly message which contains the contents of spa.c which says something like:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It looks like the root
setup.py
checks if the files are present so I think it will run okay.It looks like the CI's had no problems building it either.
Also I just checked it on my PC, and it also works as expected:
spa.c
orspa.h
then you get this:spa.c
orspa.h
then it builds the extension.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
you might consider a comment here about why you're doing this and also reference the github issue.