Station flags

[emthompson-usgs]

Also, flagged channels have a hover question mark that seems like it was trying to communicate something but it seems like it isn't functioning properly. Perhaps this is best to discuss in person. ak20257361_sm4 on dev is an event that illustrates this.

[dslosky-usgs]

@emthompson-usgs The flagged channels are displayed as abbreviations, and hovering over the flag should print a description of it. The 'TT' flag that's showing up in that list is unknown to the app... Here's what I have in there:

FLAG_DESCRIPTIONS = {
    G: 'Glitch (clipped or below noise)',
    I: 'Incomplete time series',
    M: 'Manually flagged',
    N: 'Not in list of known stations',
    T: 'Outlier'
  };

Are there more flags I can be adding to this?

[emthompson-usgs]

I don't know what "TT" means. @cbworden or @wald-usgs might know.

I also just noticed that "PSA(03)" is a bit problematic. I assume you are getting this from the old "psa03" naming convention in SM3 ("01" means 0.3, "03" means 0.3, "30" means 3.0). We are migrating to a "psa0p3" naming convention to avoid ambiguity in the decimal location, which we need if we are going to allow periods like 0.03 sec.

In any event, I think the way that this relies on hover text to understand is not ideal. There's also the potential in the future to get more than the "standard" five intensity parameters displayed here. Would this table be able to handle different columns gracefully? I'm wondering if it would make sense to make each channel/intensity pair its own row so "flag" can be a column and have the full explanation, e.g., "Glitch (clipped or below noise)." Here's a mock up of what I mean in case that isn't clear:

Channel	Intensity	Value	Flag
BHE	PGA	0.18 %g	Outlier
BHE	PGV	0.03 %g
BHE	PSA(0.3)	0.11 %g
BHN	PGA	0.08 %g	Glitch (clipped or below noise)
BHN	PGV	0.12 %g
BHN	PSA(0.3)	0.10 %g

That's my 2¢.

[dslosky-usgs]

@emthompson-usgs it will ignore extra parameters passed in; expanding the table like this could be a good idea... Let's get some feedback from the rest of the group! It'll be more flexible, but also pretty big

[dslosky-usgs]

I'm splitting this issue so we can merge in the fix for the empty station list

[cbworden]

I don't know what TT means. I'm not sure about the table format. @emthompson-usgs 's suggestion would have fifteen rows (we have to include Z values because some people like to look at them) for just the basic set of IMTs, which seems like it could get out of hand pretty quickly. But I do like the idea of the flags being spelled out.

Also, the peak (unflagged, horizontal) value for each IMT could be in bold to indicate which one was used in making the shakemap.