Skip to content

meca: inaccurate and confusing parameter names for "PRINCIPAL_AXIS" convention #1612

Closed
Closed
meca: inaccurate and confusing parameter names for "PRINCIPAL_AXIS" convention#1612
Labels
bugSomething isn't working
Milestone
0.8.0

Description

@seisman
seisman
opened on Nov 7, 2021

Description of the problem

The "PRICIPAL_AXIS" convention has 10 parameters: the value (in 10*exponent dynes-cm), azimuth, and plunge of N, T, and P axis, and also the exponent of the values. See https://docs.generic-mapping-tools.org/latest/supplements/seis/meca.html#s for the official documentation. Currently, the meca function defines the following parameters:

pygmt/pygmt/src/meca.py

Lines 255 to 266 in 4b80f3c

"PRINCIPAL_AXIS": [
"t_exponent",
"t_azimuth",
"t_plunge",
"n_exponent",
"n_azimuth",
"n_plunge",
"p_exponent",
"p_azimuth",
"p_plunge",
"exponent",
],

The parameter name t_exponent, n_exponent, and p_exponent is inaccurate and confusing, and should be renamed to t_value, n_value, and p_value.

I think we should make the change in a backward-compatible way and it should go through the deprecation cycle.

Activity

  1. seisman
    added
    bugSomething isn't working
    on Nov 7, 2021
  2. seisman
    added this to the 0.6.0 milestone on Jan 4, 2022
  3. weiji14
    modified the milestones: 0.6.0, 0.6.1 on Mar 11, 2022
  4. seisman
    modified the milestones: 0.6.1, 0.7.0 on Mar 16, 2022
  5. seisman
    modified the milestones: 0.7.0, 0.8.0 on Jun 23, 2022

  6. seisman commented on Sep 19, 2022

    @seisman
    seisman
    on Sep 19, 2022
    MemberAuthor

    I'm closing the issue without writing codes to make it backward-compatible. The reasons are:

    1. The meca function was rewritten in PR Rewrite the meca function to support offsetting and labeling beachballs #1784, which already brought some incompatible changes
    2. The PRICICIPAL_AXIS convention is not commonly used.
    3. It's a bug and was fixed in Rewrite the meca function to support offsetting and labeling beachballs #1784, and we don't have to keep backward-compatibility with buggy behavior.

    Feel free to reopen it if anyone insists that backward-compatibility is necessary for it.

  7. seisman
    closed this as completedon Sep 19, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    bugSomething isn't working

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions