-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5
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
Document process differences between back-ends #12
Comments
Thanks. As this is user documentation so I feel this is a bit too technical (i.e. remove the |
yes makes sense. I thought that it was still ok to go a bit deeper because that page is currently listed under the "advanced" menu item
To be honest, me neither, I also have no idea what the pitfalls or the differences (currently) are. I haven't really played with different use cases on multiple back-ends (except for some very basic examples). Of course, it's not that hard to just do comparison of the process descriptions, but I guess you want to go a bit further and list actual differences that are not described there. |
I assume that the processes are correctly documented, i.e. that if something is not supported, it's not listed (e.g. parameters, data types etc). Otherwise it gets difficult to figure out obvious differences by comparing schemas programmatically. One example that comes immediately to mind is documenting the differences in the load_collection Sure, if you can fix the issues before the public launch then you can omit the documentation, but at least from EODC's side it seems time has been an issue recently. Also, having it documented could be a good guide for alignment in general. By the way @soxofaan, I just assigned you here because I had hoped you could report some obvious things from the aggregator, but I only realized afterwards that the aggregator only provides the intersection of processes. I thought it would be the union and then user would need to figure out what runs where. Anyway, feel free to reassign or so, if someone else would be better suited. |
I wonder if it's a good idea to work with manually written docs for that. If we fix some issue in any of the underlying back-ends, we will probably completely forget to update this document. A quick alternative could be using the issue queue of, for example, the aggregator (https://github.com/Open-EO/openeo-aggregator/issues) and use a specific label which we can filter on to give a dynamic overview of "federation issues". |
Sure, fine with that. Although you can also forget them there (because they are usually fixed in eodc-driver/geopyspark-driver and not in the aggregator, I guess). I see the federation aspects doc as one that we need to revisit pretty often anyway as we also need to add emerging differences in the future, too. And thanks for the last update in 23bc493, that reads much better. |
see https://docs.openeo.cloud/federation/#processes
Is that an aggregator-related task? @soxofaan
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: