Fix for CMIP6 AWI-ESM-1-1-LR parent time units

[brittaGrusdt]

Description

Closes #2494

Link to documentation:

---

Before you get started

• ☝ Create an issue to discuss what you are going to do

Checklist

It is the responsibility of the author to make sure the pull request is ready to review. The icons indicate whether the item will be subject to the 🛠 Technical or 🧪 Scientific review.

• 🛠 This pull request has a descriptive title and labels
• 🛠 Code is written according to the code quality guidelines
• 🛠 Unit tests have been added
• 🛠 Changes are backward compatible
• 🛠 All checks below this pull request were successful

---

To help with the number pull requests:

• 🙏 We kindly ask you to review two other open pull requests in this repository

[valeriupredoi]

very many thanks, Britta! Here wre a couple points from me:

• first off, no worries about the failed Codacy test, that fails when test artifacts can not be uploaded to Codacy's server due to credential issues since the PR is from a private fork (we tried convince them this is an actual bug at their end, but they seem to want to brush it under the carpet)
• as for the implementation itself, I'd do it this way: if parent_units in cube.attributes and cube.attributes[parent_units] == bad_value: and remove the check on KeyError below - this is cleaner in that it checks for this particular attribute first, then raises an error that gets quashed if there are any other generic attributes-related issues

Cheers 🍺

[brittaGrusdt]

Hi again! Thank you very much for the explanations and suggestions, I appreciate it very much! I updated the code and pushed it again.

[valeriupredoi]

looking good, many thanks, Britta! Could you also please clean up the PR decsription ie tick the boxes that are relevant to the PR, and either remove of strikethrough the ones that don't apply here, please? Many thanks! 🍺

[brittaGrusdt]

Thanks again! I shortened the line, but now I get the following issue from Codacy: continuation line with same indent as next logical line (E125)
I'm not exactly sure how to resolve this without that codacy complains about an overindentation. I'm sorry for the back and forth, this is my first pull request..

[valeriupredoi]

let's try this then

[valeriupredoi]

last resort 😁

[valeriupredoi]

Hi @brittaGrusdt - my apologies, I was away for a few days, style issues all fixed, so if you could have a look at the PR description (boxes etc), that'd be great, cheers! I am going to approve now, don't worry about the failed tests - nothing to do with your code changes, I'll ping @schlunma for both a quick check over the PR and merge, and for us to have a look at those tests (Manu, it seems we need to look into the new iris MeshXY that we popped in with your PR)

[valeriupredoi]

cheers muchly 🍺

[valeriupredoi]

Aah nevermind, Manu! realized the PR is behind main 😁 But if you have a second to have a look and merge this one, that'd be kickin' 🍺

[schlunma]

I guess the failing test is again related to the fact that the feature branch is in a fork? https://app.circleci.com/pipelines/github/ESMValGroup/ESMValCore/11565/workflows/1aba8376-eba9-4258-a831-c59b71b890b2/jobs/48634

[valeriupredoi]

That is correct, Manu! We contacted Codacy but we never got a proper resolution on it, sadly codacy/codacy-coverage-reporter#500

[schlunma]

Thanks @brittaGrusdt and @valeriupredoi 🚀

[valeriupredoi]

cheers, Manu 🍺

[brittaGrusdt]

Thanks a lot, both of you!