Skip to content
GitLab
Projects Groups Snippets
  • /
  • Help
    • Help
    • Support
    • Community forum
    • Submit feedback
    • Contribute to GitLab
  • Register
  • Sign in
  • airGR airGR
  • Project information
    • Project information
    • Activity
    • Labels
    • Members
  • Repository
    • Repository
    • Files
    • Commits
    • Branches
    • Tags
    • Contributors
    • Graph
    • Compare
  • Issues 60
    • Issues 60
    • List
    • Boards
    • Service Desk
    • Milestones
  • Redmine
    • Redmine
  • Merge requests 8
    • Merge requests 8
  • CI/CD
    • CI/CD
    • Pipelines
    • Jobs
    • Schedules
  • Deployments
    • Deployments
    • Environments
    • Releases
  • Packages and registries
    • Packages and registries
    • Container Registry
  • Monitor
    • Monitor
    • Incidents
  • Analytics
    • Analytics
    • Value stream
    • CI/CD
    • Repository
  • Wiki
    • Wiki
  • Snippets
    • Snippets
  • Activity
  • Graph
  • Create a new issue
  • Jobs
  • Commits
  • Issue Boards
Collapse sidebar
  • HYCAR-HydroHYCAR-Hydro
  • airGRairGR
  • Issues
  • #115
Closed
Open
Issue created Apr 16, 2021 by Delaigue Olivier@olivier.delaigueOwner

Add PCICt date format management

Tom Chitso & Katie A. Smith from CEH Friday, March 5, 2021 11:17:28 AM

I am replying on behalf of Katie and I, as I am running the airGR package as part of our ongoing research. The error comes when using POSIXct dates with 360-day years. POSIXct does not accept the 29th and 30th February as dates, so gives them NA values. When I use this with CreateInputsModel I get the error:

“Error in CreateInputsModel(FUN_MOD = get(paste0("RunModel_", model)),  : 
  'DatesR' must not include duplicated values”

I have tried running CreateInputsModel with PCICt dates (which accepts 360 day years), but this gives the error:

“Error in CreateInputsModel(FUN_MOD = get(paste0("RunModel_", model)),  : 
  'DatesR' must be defined as 'POSIXlt' or 'POSIXct'”

I have run the model successfully using a dummy set of POSIXct dates, and then converted back to the original dates at the end of the process. Is this approach acceptable? I have also seen your previous conversation with Katie, but could not quite understand the solution. Do you suggest duplicating the 28th February data to act as in-fill data for the 29th and 30th February?

Edited Apr 27, 2021 by Delaigue Olivier
Assignee
Assign to
Time tracking