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

Move run_has_transient_landcover function into a fire-specific module #1560

Open
billsacks opened this issue Nov 22, 2021 · 0 comments
Open
Labels
bfb bit-for-bit code health improving internal code structure to make easier to maintain (sustainability) good first issue simple; good for first-time contributors

Comments

@billsacks
Copy link
Member

The function run_has_transient_landcover is defined here:

logical function run_has_transient_landcover()

However, as noted here:

#1546 (comment)

there are subtleties about which aspects of transient landcover should and should not be included in this function. As I noted in the above comment:

I was initially concerned that you added urban to this conditional, but lake is not included. However, after some analysis of how this function is used, I think this is correct: this is just used by the fire code, which really wants to know whether there are any potential deforestation fires. Forests being replaced by urban could be linked with deforestation fires; forests being replaced by lakes / reservoirs seem very unlikely to be linked with deforestation fires.

Probably what we should do is to move this function into the fire code, and make it fire-specific, since otherwise it isn't obvious why this should include some transitions but not others.

As noted in #52 there are some broader issues with the mix of human-induced and natural landcover transitions, but those bigger issues would probably be a pain to fix, so for now I think it is sufficient to move this run_has_transient_landcover function into the fire code with comments saying that this just includes potentially human-induced aspects of landcover change.

@billsacks billsacks added code health improving internal code structure to make easier to maintain (sustainability) tag: simple bfb labels Nov 22, 2021
@samsrabin samsrabin added simple bfb bit-for-bit and removed simple bfb labels Aug 8, 2024
@samsrabin samsrabin added good first issue simple; good for first-time contributors and removed simple labels Oct 3, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bfb bit-for-bit code health improving internal code structure to make easier to maintain (sustainability) good first issue simple; good for first-time contributors
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants