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
At the moment the time information is implicit and depends on the parameters of the city that generated the data. This is error-prone. We don't need to store the waveform times, but this wouldn't be too bad either, as it doesn't take a lot of space. I suggest we simply store the sampling time as a node attribute for now. The waveform times can be trivially obtained as np.arange(len(wf)) * sampling_time.
#837 would introduce the parameter used by the city, which would already implement this functionality indirectly. I would rather have it duplicated and attached to the relevant information as they serve different purposes. Perhaps we will see that this is unnecessary in the future and remove it.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
At the moment the time information is implicit and depends on the parameters of the city that generated the data. This is error-prone. We don't need to store the waveform times, but this wouldn't be too bad either, as it doesn't take a lot of space. I suggest we simply store the sampling time as a node attribute for now. The waveform times can be trivially obtained as
np.arange(len(wf)) * sampling_time
.#837 would introduce the parameter used by the city, which would already implement this functionality indirectly. I would rather have it duplicated and attached to the relevant information as they serve different purposes. Perhaps we will see that this is unnecessary in the future and remove it.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: