support 'any' process in filter_labels #239
Assignees
Comments
|
@EmileSonneveld I committed a first version of this, to get something to the user that needs this.
|
|
This code worked: def build_condition(x):
conditions = []
dates = ["2021-01-02", "2021-01-05", "2021-02-01", "2021-02-04"]
for date in dates:
min_date = (datetime.datetime.fromisoformat(date)).isoformat() + "Z"
max_date = (datetime.datetime.fromisoformat(date) + datetime.timedelta(days=1)).isoformat() + "Z"
conditions.append(process("date_between", x=x, min=min_date, max=max_date))
return any(conditions)
condition = build_child_callback(build_condition, parent_parameters=["value"])
datacube = datacube.process(process_id="filter_labels",
arguments={"data": datacube, "condition": condition},
dimension="t")But nicer syntax will be available in next release: from openeo.processes import any, process, date_between
from openeo.util import rfc3339
def filter_labels_condition(x):
conditions = []
dates = ["2021-01-02", "2021-01-05", "2021-02-01", "2021-02-04"]
for date in dates:
date = rfc3339.parse_date(date)
min_date = rfc3339.date(date)
max_date = rfc3339.date(date + datetime.timedelta(days=1))
conditions.append(date_between(x=x, min=min_date, max=max_date))
return any(conditions)
datacube = datacube.filter_labels(condition=filter_labels_condition, dimension="t")
|
EmileSonneveld
added a commit
to Open-EO/openeo-python-driver
that referenced
this issue
Dec 12, 2023
|
date_between now also available in web editor |
|
{
"process_graph": {
"loadcollection1": {
"process_id": "load_collection",
"arguments": {
"bands": [
"B04"
],
"id": "SENTINEL2_L2A",
"spatial_extent": {
"east": 5.08,
"north": 51.22,
"south": 51.215,
"west": 5.07
},
"temporal_extent": [
"2021-01-01",
"2021-03-01"
]
}
},
"apply1": {
"process_id": "apply_dimension",
"arguments": {
"data": {
"from_node": "loadcollection1"
},
"dimension": "t",
"process": {
"process_graph": {
"any1": {
"arguments": {
"data": {
"from_parameter": "data"
}
},
"process_id": "any"
},
"any2": {
"arguments": {
"data": [
{
"from_node": "constant1"
},
{
"from_node": "constant2"
}
]
},
"process_id": "any"
},
"constant1": {
"arguments": {
"x": false
},
"process_id": "constant"
},
"constant2": {
"arguments": {
"x": true
},
"process_id": "constant"
},
"if5": {
"arguments": {
"accept": {
"from_node": "any1"
},
"value": {
"from_node": "any2"
}
},
"process_id": "if",
"result": true
}
}
}
}
},
"saveresult1": {
"process_id": "save_result",
"arguments": {
"data": {
"from_node": "apply1"
},
"format": "GTiff"
},
"result": true
}
},
"parameters": []
} |
|
With a more fine tuned process graph, the any node actually does work in 2 different use cases process graph{
"process_graph": {
"loadcollection1": {
"process_id": "load_collection",
"arguments": {
"bands": [
"B04"
],
"id": "SENTINEL2_L2A",
"spatial_extent": {
"east": 5.08,
"north": 51.22,
"south": 51.215,
"west": 5.07
},
"temporal_extent": [
"2021-01-09",
"2021-01-13"
]
}
},
"apply1": {
"process_id": "apply_dimension",
"arguments": {
"data": {
"from_node": "loadcollection1"
},
"dimension": "t",
"process": {
"process_graph": {
"any2": {
"process_id": "any",
"arguments": {
"data": [
1,
0,
1
]
}
},
"any1": {
"process_id": "any",
"arguments": {
"data": [
{
"from_node": "gt1"
}
]
}
},
"if5": {
"process_id": "if",
"arguments": {
"accept": {
"from_node": "any1"
},
"value": {
"from_node": "any2"
}
}
},
"multiply1": {
"process_id": "multiply",
"arguments": {
"x": {
"from_node": "if5"
},
"y": 1
},
"result": true
},
"gt1": {
"process_id": "gt",
"arguments": {
"y": 700,
"x": {
"from_parameter": "data"
}
}
}
}
}
},
"result": true
}
},
"parameters": []
} |
|
Some code changed around the process graph{
"process_graph": {
"loadcollection1": {
"process_id": "load_collection",
"arguments": {
"bands": [
"SCL"
],
"id": "SENTINEL2_L2A",
"spatial_extent": {
"east": -25,
"north": 41,
"south": 39.5,
"west": -26.5
},
"temporal_extent": [
"2021-01-01",
"2021-01-10"
]
}
},
"apply1": {
"process_id": "apply",
"arguments": {
"data": {
"from_node": "loadcollection1"
},
"process": {
"process_graph": {
"cos1": {
"process_id": "cos",
"arguments": {
"x": {
"from_parameter": "x"
}
}
},
"eq1": {
"process_id": "eq",
"arguments": {
"x": {
"from_parameter": "x"
},
"y": 9,
"delta": 0
}
},
"eq2": {
"process_id": "eq",
"arguments": {
"x": 1,
"y": 1
}
},
"if1": {
"process_id": "if",
"arguments": {
"accept": {
"from_node": "eq1"
},
"value": {
"from_node": "eq2"
},
"reject": {
"from_node": "cos1"
}
}
},
"multiply1": {
"process_id": "multiply",
"arguments": {
"x": {
"from_node": "if1"
},
"y": 1
},
"result": true
}
}
}
}
},
"saveresult1": {
"process_id": "save_result",
"arguments": {
"data": {
"from_node": "apply1"
},
"format": "netcdf"
},
"result": true
}
},
"parameters": []
} |
|
Maybe related: #286 |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
In filter labels, when chaining together many (100+) 'or' processes, we run into maximum recursion depth:
The best solution is to use the 'any' process instead, which should then receive an array of 'date_between' comparisons.
We will need to extend our new type checking mechanism in OpenEOProcessScriptBuilder to allow detecting this case.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: