docs(mf6io): update .dfn files corresponding to similar change in mf6 #1956
Conversation
emorway-usgs
changed the title
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #1956 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 72.6% 72.6%
=======================================
Files 257 257
Lines 57801 57804 +3
=======================================
+ Hits 42018 42022 +4
+ Misses 15783 15782 -1
|
|
It's unclear to me why this PR is required for the MODFLOW 6 refactoring. I think we should update the dfn files, but I think we typically do that when we make mf6 and flopy releases. |
|
@langevin-usgs I think updating flopy DFNs is needed as a consequence of #1824. Before that, the official mf6 release was used for flopy CI tests. I believe we discussed at the time but I don't recall the full context. May be worth revisiting / reconsidering? |
|
I was unaware the .dfn files get updated during the procedures leading up to a release. I opened the PR as a matter of "house-keeping" with the thinking that the .dfn files should remain synchronized as development moves forward. |
|
IIRC, the addition of an example model using develop features prompted the move to keep mf6 and flopy DFNs in sync. I don't think this would be necessary if a develop/master branch release approach were adopted on the example repo. |
|
@emorway-usgs, can you regenerate the flopy classes and include them in this PR? |
emorway-usgs
force-pushed
the
chng_2_go_w_mf6_dfn_chng
branch
from
1834dee to
7dd94cf
Compare
|
It would probably be better if you only updated the classes relevant to this PR. |
|
@langevin-usgs, agreed, have backed-out the adjustments that were made to the timestamps of the other classes not touched by this PR |
Not sure what's causing the failure in MF6 #1356, maybe the discrepancy between the dfn files stored in mf6 vs what's here in flopy?