I changed the sun angle check error message to match the documentation and
the script code. See below.
Michael
__________________________________________
Michael Barton, Professor of Anthropology
School of Human Evolution & Social Change
Center for Social Dynamics and Complexity
Arizona State University
> There is a bug in r.shaded.relief where the input parameters are
> checked, especially the azimuth.
>
> the current version reads:
> ================
> if test $alt -lt 0 -o $alt -gt 90
> then
> echo "Sorry, altitude must be greater than 0 and less than
> 90"
changed to "Sorry, altitude must be between 0 and 90"
> exit 1
> fi
>
> if test $az -lt 0 -o $alt -gt 360
^^^^ ^^^^
actually this was the error.
> then
> echo "Sorry, azimuth must be between 0 and 360"
> exit 1
> fi
Anyway, those checks should have been in the parameter setup as
#% options : 0-90
to let the parser do its job.
so I've moved them there for both 6.1 and 6.0.x CVS branches.
For this module out-of-bounds values don't fail, so 0-90 or 1-89 really
didn't matter to the output. I think the description was changed to
odd numbers to reflect the broken >,< tests?
also did a few more cleanups in the 6.1 branch. (record metadata, etc)
I see it now. It wasn't clear to me in the bug report.
Thanks for fixing it.
Michael
__________________________________________
Michael Barton, Professor of Anthropology
School of Human Evolution & Social Change
Center for Social Dynamics & Complexity
Arizona State University
There is a bug in r.shaded.relief where the input parameters are
checked, especially the azimuth.
the current version reads:
if test $alt -lt 0 -o $alt -gt 90
then
echo "Sorry, altitude must be greater than 0 and less than
90"
changed to "Sorry, altitude must be between 0 and 90"
exit 1
fi
if test $az -lt 0 -o $alt -gt 360
^^^^ ^^^^
actually this was the error.
then
echo "Sorry, azimuth must be between 0 and 360"
exit 1
fi
Anyway, those checks should have been in the parameter setup as
#% options : 0-90
to let the parser do its job.
so I've moved them there for both 6.1 and 6.0.x CVS branches.
For this module out-of-bounds values don't fail, so 0-90 or 1-89 really
didn't matter to the output. I think the description was changed to
odd numbers to reflect the broken >,< tests?
also did a few more cleanups in the 6.1 branch. (record metadata, etc)