Consistent attribute names about pypms HOT 5 CLOSED

The naming came from work, the Open Source EMEP MSC-W model uses PM25 for PM2.5 and I'm so used to it that pm2_5 looks wrong to me.

I already have 1.5 years collected as pm25 so I won't change the fields names, but I could define raw2_5/pm2_5 as properties for all relevant PM sensors. Would this be sufficient?

from pypms.

Makes sense if you're confirming to another standard, does Open Source EMEP MSC-W model also present PM1 as PM01 and PM4 as PM04?

from pypms.

Makes sense if you're confirming to another standard, does Open Source EMEP MSC-W model also present PM1 as PM01 and PM4 as PM04?

It only has PM2.5 and PM10 outputs. Some of my colleagues have research versions with more detail but I do not know what they call the extra tracers.

... I could define raw2_5/pm2_5 as properties for all relevant PM sensors. Would this be sufficient?

What do you think about the raw2_5/pm2_5 properties?

from pypms.

I think that's a good idea to give consistent names without making a breaking a change

from pypms.

I only pushed raw2_5/pm2_5 properties, when I add them all the coverage goes under 95%...
I'll add some tests before pushing the rest

from pypms.