Re: Re: CONDUIT and field selection (again!)

• To: Christian Pagé <page.christian@xxxxxxxxx>
• Subject: Re: Re: CONDUIT and field selection (again!)
• From: Steve Chiswell <chiz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
• Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 20:25:09 -0700 (MST)

Christian,

You have a double "|" following the RH/2.m, which is likely causing
your match of all products.

Steve Chiswell
Unidata User Support

On Tue, 21 Nov 2006, [ISO-8859-1] Christian Pagé wrote:

> Thanks to all who replied, it works well now! :-)
>
> However, I have noticed that even if I have such a regex in ldmd.conf:
> request CONDUIT
> "(status|MT.nam|prod/gfs.*PRMSL|prod/gfs.*HGT/500|prod/gfs.*HGT/1000|prod/gfs.*APCP|prod/gfs.*RH/2.m||prod/gfs.*TMP/2.m|prod/gfs.*TCDC/atmos_col|prod/gfs.*HGT/0C|prod/gfs.*UGRD;VGRD/10.m|prod/gefs.*TMPK/850)"
>
> It seems that all fields from prod/gfs are sent out because if, in my
> pqact.conf, I write all  incoming products, I get all the fields
> nonetheless. I am trying to limit the bandwidth used by conduit. Is
> there something I need to adjust in the regex to get only these
> products sent out?
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Christian Page
> UQAM
>
> 2006/11/20, JosephSheedy <josephs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> > On Mon, Nov 20, 2006 at 02:01:53PM +0000, David Knight wrote:
> >
> > >     The first thing I see is that
> > > gfs\.(........)/gfs
> > > does not match
> > > gfs.2006112000/gfs
> > > Your pattern only looks for 8 characters where there are 10. Try
> > > gfs\.(........).*/gfs
> >
> >  I find it really helps to use a regular expression debugger on big
> > expressions like those in used in the LDM.  They let you work the bugs
> > out of your regular expressions quickly.  I use Kodos,
> > http://kodos.sourceforge.net/ , but there are others out there.
> >
> > --
> > Joseph Sheedy
> > Technical Specialist, 3TIER Environmental Forecast Group
> > josephs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx | (206)325-1573 x116
> >
>
>
> --
>

• References:
  • CONDUIT and field selection (again!)
    • From: Christian Pagé
  • Re: CONDUIT and field selection (again!)
    • From: David Knight
  • Re: CONDUIT and field selection (again!)
    • From: JosephSheedy
  • Re: Re: CONDUIT and field selection (again!)
    • From: Christian Pagé