-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5
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
Site Image Viewer #229
Site Image Viewer #229
Conversation
Co-authored-by: Mike VanDenburgh <37340715+mvandenburgh@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Mike VanDenburgh <37340715+mvandenburgh@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Mike VanDenburgh <37340715+mvandenburgh@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Mike VanDenburgh <37340715+mvandenburgh@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Mike VanDenburgh <37340715+mvandenburgh@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Mike VanDenburgh <37340715+mvandenburgh@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Mike VanDenburgh <37340715+mvandenburgh@users.noreply.github.com>
geom_serializer = SiteObservationGeomListSerializer(geom_queryset) | ||
output['images'] = image_serializer.data | ||
output['geoJSON'] = geom_serializer.data | ||
return Response(output) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We should use ninja
here instead of DRF. I'm not opposed to merging this first if you'd prefer that, but the goal is to eventually use ninja exclusively and drop DRF as a dependency all together.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looking at this I thing your branch #239 should be merged first, because really these are /evaluations/images/:id
and I can do the transfer to that.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Update: I don't think I needed that merged, because really this lives under viewes.site_observations
, because site_observations is technically /evaluations/:id
which makes things wonderfully confusing.
Co-authored-by: Mike VanDenburgh <37340715+mvandenburgh@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Mike VanDenburgh <37340715+mvandenburgh@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Mike VanDenburgh <37340715+mvandenburgh@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Mike VanDenburgh <37340715+mvandenburgh@users.noreply.github.com>
), | ||
status=SatelliteFetching.Status.RUNNING, | ||
) | ||
.annotate(count=Func(F('id'), function='Count')) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
.annotate(count=Func(F('id'), function='Count')) | |
.annotate(count=Count('id')) |
3950775
to
6b50bf7
Compare
Overview:
Backend Changes:
generate-images
andcancel-generate-images
which will execute generating images for all siteEvaluations of a model-run.Client Side:
/annotation
which changes the behavior of the system to only selecting one model run. That modelrun then displays a list of site evaluations and clicking on them will bring up the image viewer.