R23: GDAC rejects files with type SOLO_BGC

[ClaudiaAOML]

SOLO_BGC as instrument type gets rejected by the GDACs. Because of that we have to use SOLO_II. Not sure if I picked the right names as "assignees" ...

[tcarval]

@ClaudiaAOML Hello Claudia, I'll check the content of AOML rejected metadata files and register on checker and NVS the new instrument type.

[tcarval]

There are 5 metadata files that were rejected by the format checker
ls -lah *_meta.nc
-rw-r----- 1 co_exp coriolis 105K Mar 6 19:19 2903867_meta.nc
-rw-r----- 1 co_exp coriolis 111K Mar 20 03:45 4903748_meta.nc
-rw-r----- 1 co_exp coriolis 105K Mar 6 18:45 4903750_meta.nc
-rw-r--r-- 1 co_exp coriolis 35K Mar 21 22:34 5906949_meta.nc
-rw-r----- 1 co_exp coriolis 107K Mar 8 00:13 6990583_meta.nc

2903867_meta.nc, 4903748_meta.nc.filecheck, 4903750_meta.nc 6990583_meta.nc : replace MBARI by SBE
SENSOR_MODEL/SENSOR_MAKER[6]: Inconsistent: 'SEAFET'/'MBARI'

5906949_meta.nc : remove the empty LAUNCH_CONFIG_PARAMETER_NAME
LAUNCH_CONFIG_PARAMETER_NAME[27]: Incorrectly formed name ''
CONFIG_PARAMETER_NAME[15]: Incorrectly formed name ''

[tcarval]

@ClaudiaAOML , is this R23 entry for SOLO_BGC correct ? Should we use MBARI in platform maker and description ?

<style> </style>

PLATFORM_TYPE	PLATFORM_TYPE_KEY	IXIXIX (1770)	PLATFORM_MAKER	Description	FLOAT_SERIAL_NO SAMPLE
SOLO_BGC	206	884 885 886 887	MBARI	MBARI SOLO
SOLO_W	201	850 851 852	WHOI	WHOI SOLO
SOLO_II	202	853 879	SIO_IDG	SIO SOLOII
SOLO_D	220	862	SIO_IDG	Deep SOLO
SOLO_D_MRV	221	874	MRV
SOLO	200	850 851 852	SIO_IDG	SIO SOLO

[tcarval]

Add SOLO_BGC in R23 and add SIO_IDG as the platform maker.
SOLO_BGC | 206 | 884 885 886 887 | SIO_IDG | MBARI SOLO |

@ClaudiaAOML can you send me a sample file ?
It will not be possible to have SOLO_BGC with 2 makers (SIO_IDG or MRV).

[tcarval]

@ClaudiaAOML hello Claudia, I published a new version of the file checker to accept SOLO_BGC float type with SIO_IDG maker.
https://github.com/euroargodev/ArgoNetCDF/releases/tag/v2.8.10