You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The documentation in cdflib.epochs.py states that CDF_TIME_TT2000 includes leap seconds. However, per this document, CDF_TIME_TT2000 is in TT format and therefore does not add leap seconds.
From SDFC: "Given a current list of leap seconds, conversion between TT and UTC is straightforward (TT = TAI + 32.184s; TT = UTC + deltaAT + 32.184s, where deltaAT is the sum of the leap seconds since 1960; for example, for 2009, deltaAT = 34s). "
Per Wikipedia and NAIF, TT is based on TAI which does not add leap seconds.
Therefore, I believe this documentation is wrong. However, from looking through the code, in particular breakdown_tt2000 which converts TT2000 into UTC and correctly includes a leap second addition, this is only an issue in the documentation and not in the code itself.
If this is an issue, I'm happy to open a PR to correct it - just wanted to check in and see if I am right first.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
The documentation in cdflib.epochs.py states that
CDF_TIME_TT2000
includes leap seconds. However, per this document,CDF_TIME_TT2000
is in TT format and therefore does not add leap seconds.From SDFC: "Given a current list of leap seconds, conversion between TT and UTC is straightforward (TT = TAI + 32.184s; TT = UTC + deltaAT + 32.184s, where deltaAT is the sum of the leap seconds since 1960; for example, for 2009, deltaAT = 34s). "
Per Wikipedia and NAIF, TT is based on TAI which does not add leap seconds.
Therefore, I believe this documentation is wrong. However, from looking through the code, in particular
breakdown_tt2000
which converts TT2000 into UTC and correctly includes a leap second addition, this is only an issue in the documentation and not in the code itself.If this is an issue, I'm happy to open a PR to correct it - just wanted to check in and see if I am right first.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: