pdt6 & gdt140 take *three*

[pp-mo]

Replacing #295, since that also went stale. Both due to drift in main branch, and also the adoption of #343 which implemented part of what the original PR did (phew!)
Effectively just rebasing #295, with related changes matching changes-since in the main branch.

N.B. this now only adds the pdt6 support, since #343 already fixed gdt140.

[CLAassistant]

All committers have signed the CLA.

[pp-mo]

Hi @marqh you can see that we're finally trying to adopt that code you proposed ages ago !
But this needs your agreement to the new CLA, since we changed it.

Or, if it seems more appropriate, I think you can make your membership of https://github.com/MetOffice "public", in which case that in itself should satisfy the CLA checker (see its detailed terms).

[trexfeathers]

I used our implementation of template 4.1 as my basis, since officially-speaking it seems to be defined in an identical way except for the swapping of ensemble information for percentile information.

• Published definition
  • 4.1
  • 4.6
• eccodes definition
  • 4.1
  • 4.6

[marqh]

Hi @marqh you can see that we're finally trying to adopt that code you proposed ages ago ! But this needs your agreement to the new CLA, since we changed it.

Or, if it seems more appropriate, I think you can make your membership of https://github.com/MetOffice "public", in which case that in itself should satisfy the CLA checker (see its detailed terms).

Hi @pp-mo
i've updated user membership status, in the hope that this would justWork™
but the license/cla is still pending
i am content to agree to a CLA, but just wanted to check if this is redundant, given membership change
all ther best, m

[trexfeathers]

Hi @marqh you can see that we're finally trying to adopt that code you proposed ages ago ! But this needs your agreement to the new CLA, since we changed it.
Or, if it seems more appropriate, I think you can make your membership of https://github.com/MetOffice "public", in which case that in itself should satisfy the CLA checker (see its detailed terms).

Hi @pp-mo i've updated user membership status, in the hope that this would justWork™ but the license/cla is still pending i am content to agree to a CLA, but just wanted to check if this is redundant, given membership change all ther best, m

Thanks for getting back to us @marqh! You still are not appearing in the publicly accessible list - view this page in an incognito window - which is what the CLA Assistant needs so it can confirm you are Met Office person. Was this the guidance you followed?

[marqh]

Was this the guidance you followed?

yes
it says public on my authorised session and doesn't have me on an incognito session
i am confused (sorry)

[trexfeathers]

Was this the guidance you followed?

yes it says public on my authorised session and doesn't have me on an incognito session i am confused (sorry)

Could this possibly be due to a confusion between @marqh and @mo-marqh?