@alyssaobester 1:15 PM the package is working for me on some gages and not others. any ideas as to why? Nick Santos 2:47 can you send me some of the working and some of the not working gage ids? Alyssa Obester 2:49 PM okay, thanks 2:51 this seem to be working: USGS gage: 11445500, SF American River near Lotus COMID: 14982092 and if I manually provide flow data for a COMID on the Middle Fork American River (COMID 14994421) it runs. (edited) 2:52 but this gage on San Antonio Creek doesn't work (11117500) and I get the following error: ``` Error in if (median >= predictions[["p10"]] && median <= predictions[["p90"]]) { : missing value where TRUE/FALSE needed ``` 2:53 And when I download that USGS gage data and try and feed it into the package, this is the error I get: 2:53 ``` (Error in process_data(flows_df, params, flow_field = flow_field, date_field = date_field, : Bad Request (HTTP 400). ``` 2:53 This actually was something Bronwen ran into, and I also tried it and got the same error 2:56 we also found a gage on USGS that doesn't seem to exist to the package, but that's a separate and less important issue right now Nick Santos 3:15 PM is the gage new, or possibly lacking daily flow data? 3:16 the package keeps a list of info about the daily flow gages in CA - Ryan and I discussed missing gages as a possible hazard when he wrote that part of the gage code, but decided it was probably better than the alternative for now, I think 3:17 it'd be good for us to maybe provide a warning message if someone plugs in a nonexistent gage though Alyssa Obester 3:17 PM I don't think so, this is the gage: https://waterdata.usgs.gov/ca/nwis/inventory/?site_no=11118501 3:17 I think a warning would be helpful Nick Santos 3:17 PM that says something like "can't find gage - if you're sure it's in California and provides daily flow data, then this package may need an update - please file an issue at ____" Alyssa Obester 3:17 PM yes yes Nick Santos 3:18 PM we may be able to code around it and use the package internal data as a starting point and then try the internet services if it can't find it internally, but most of that probably isn't high on the todo list - and adds complexity - might just be worth always going to the internet, even if it's a bit slower 3:19 other failures will also need error messages, such as the san antonio creek gage - I think that's a data availability problem - probably need to do some sanity checks on the percentile data and make sure to only run appropriate alteration comparisons 3:19 huh, yeah, that is definitively not a new gage Alyssa Obester 3:20 PM oh interesting Nick Santos 3:21 PM we've had issues with gages with low or intermittent data - if the data was spotty, our comparisons ran into issues - we fixed at least one issue like that, which caused processing to fail, but probably need to figure out what's required to make san antonio creek work, and then have a test for it 3:21 OK, I'm going to file an issue with this conversation as the body of it Alyssa Obester 3:21 PM there's also another gage that's right on top of where that gage should be (11118501) 3:21 but apparently it's not the same one Nick Santos 3:21 PM huh - that's odd 3:22 did the one on top of it replace it? Alyssa Obester 3:22 PM oops I meant to paste 11118500 Nick Santos 3:23 PM huh, it's older and lasts longer for daily discharge Alyssa Obester 3:23 PM I don't think it replaced it