Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

aggregate_temporal_period after load_stac gives unexpected results #855

Closed
VincentVerelst opened this issue Sep 3, 2024 · 4 comments
Closed

Comments

@VincentVerelst
Copy link

In job j-240902ff18204cc38e0256e8872702b9 on the Terrascope backend, I load in a STAC collection. The STAC collection can be found in the attachment. The temporal extent ranges from 2016 to 2018. I then apply median compositing using the aggregate_temporal_period process. Finally, I use aggregate_spatial to extract some points to geoparquet format.

The resulting geoparquet file unexpectedly contains a timeseries ranging from 1970-2062 in monthly timesteps. Due to this, the batch job took a long time to run and used many credits.

Without applying aggregate_temporal_period, the timeseries in the resulting geoparquet varies from 2016 to 2018, as expected. This leads me to believe that the problem lies within the aggregate_temporal_period process being used after load_stac.

collection.json

@VincentVerelst
Copy link
Author

VincentVerelst commented Sep 3, 2024

Explicitly setting a temporal_extent in load_stac fixes this issue.

@jdries
Copy link
Contributor

jdries commented Sep 3, 2024

Proposed fix: fall back to temporal extent of stac collection when no extent is provided in load_stac.

@bossie
Copy link
Collaborator

bossie commented Sep 20, 2024

@VincentVerelst the fix for #852 should also cover this; please retry on openeo-dev.

@VincentVerelst
Copy link
Author

@bossie, sorry forgot to comment on this one: confirmed that this one is fixed as well!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants
@bossie @jdries @VincentVerelst and others