Yes, with the understanding that we shouldn't just ignore them by default.
 It's important that we understand if the parameter really is an optional
parameter OR is it a result of a bad instrument configuration.  In other
words can we confidently suppress that warning or should it stay because it
really should be a warning.




On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 7:18 AM, emilyhahn <notifications@github.com> wrote:

> In mi/dataset/parser/glider.py:
>
> >
> >              else:
> > -                #log.warn("The particle defined in the" +
> > -                #         "ParticleKey, %s, is not present in the current" % key +
> > -                #         "data set. Confirm by checking the m, s, or tbdlist of " +
> > -                #         "the glider to insure this is expected, or check the " +
> > -                #         "standard lists and/or Particle Keys")
> > -                SampleException("%s column missing from datafile, row ignored", key)
> > +                log.warn("The particle defined in the" +
>
> Sounds good, I will implement that, and add any other particles that seem
> to have the same behavior from testing with the real data.
>
> —
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub<https://github.com/ooici/marine-integrations/pull/184/files#r12145173>
> .
>



-- 
Bill French
Ocean Observatories Initiative Cyberinfrastructure Project
http://ci.oceanobservatories.org
O: 858-822-1738