Skip to content
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

neonOS::removeDups perplexing error #5

Open
znickerson8 opened this issue Jun 30, 2023 · 5 comments
Open

neonOS::removeDups perplexing error #5

znickerson8 opened this issue Jun 30, 2023 · 5 comments

Comments

@znickerson8
Copy link

Getting the following error:

Error in neonOS::removeDups(data = apc_taxonomyRaw, variables = variables_20072, :
Input data appear to be the basic download package. The expanded data package is required for removeDups() to identify all duplicates correctly.

Even though we are downloading the expanded download package

Reproducible code:

# Set date variables
startDate_checked = "2021-07"
endDate_checked = "2021-07"
# Load portal data
apc_allTabs <- loadByProduct(
  dpID='DP1.20072.001',
  check.size=F, 
  site = "all",
  package='expanded',
  startdate = startDate_checked,
  enddate = endDate_checked,
  token = Sys.getenv('NEON_PAT')) 
list2env(apc_allTabs, envir=.GlobalEnv)
@znickerson8
Copy link
Author

@stephparker @cklunch

@cklunch
Copy link
Collaborator

cklunch commented Jun 30, 2023

@znickerson8 @stephparker The problem is that phylum and infraspecificEpithet are in the variables file but not in the data. Were they added to the pub workbook recently? The most likely way we'd end up in this situation is if the workbook was updated and the data product was re-published but not re-processed.

@stephparker
Copy link

@cklunch yes but that issue happened in apc_taxonomyProcessed as well and I didn't get this error, I got the error saying the fields were missing.

@stephparker
Copy link

@cklunch @znickerson8 ok when I add those columns, this does run. I'm not sure why the error message was different from the other dataframes.

@cklunch
Copy link
Collaborator

cklunch commented Jun 30, 2023

@stephparker Yeah, if the code sees missing fields from the basic package, it says they're missing, but if it sees missing fields from the expanded package, it suggests maybe you're working with the basic package. I'll improve the messaging in the next version, thanks for the heads up!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants