You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The issue is partially resolved as in we have done the bulk of the work for the necessary renaming of 16(?) scenarios, but @DamonU2 has a very good point on "add[ing] a "display_name" variable to the initialization files, and consistency on naming, etc., so I am reproducing his comment here as a new issue for us to really think about and improve on in the future.
As @anthonyfok said, this is bigger issue than it seems. Specifically, for GitHub pages, the "code name" is used to generate the "display name", as it was set up to add additional scenarios with limited manual updating. All of the links, tiles, and associated files use the "code name" for ID, so we'd have to change the "display name" down the line.
The easiest way to do this is probably to add a "display_name" variable to the initialization files, and pull that in. However, we then have the issue of someone looking at a scenario named "Georgia Strait 4.9" and downloading a file called "capilano5", and probably assuming the link is broken (side note - should Georgia Strait be Salish Sea?). This is probably a good method if the code name and display name are similar, ex. "Ottawa" to "near Ottawa", and we just want additional detail, but seems problematic otherwise, ex. "BurwashLanding" to "Denali Fault".
The best way going forward may be to add a display name variable, but also to rename the files in the case of big changes, and reprocess them. @tieganh Do we have a list of proper names for the scenarios in Jeremy's repo?
The issue is partially resolved as in we have done the bulk of the work for the necessary renaming of 16(?) scenarios, but @DamonU2 has a very good point on "add[ing] a "display_name" variable to the initialization files, and consistency on naming, etc., so I am reproducing his comment here as a new issue for us to really think about and improve on in the future.
Originally posted by @DamonU2 in #73 (comment)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: