Fix windows w/ logging

[zklaus]

Checklist

• Used a personal fork of the feedstock to propose changes
• Bumped the build number (if the version is unchanged)
• Reset the build number to 0 (if the version changed)
• Re-rendered with the latest conda-smithy (Use the phrase @conda-forge-admin, please rerender in a comment in this PR for automated rerendering)
• Ensured the license file is being packaged.

[conda-forge-webservices]

Hi! This is the friendly automated conda-forge-linting service.

I just wanted to let you know that I linted all conda-recipes in your PR (recipe) and found it was in an excellent condition.

[zklaus]

@DennisHeimbigner, seems to work as expected. Feel free to poke around!

[DennisHeimbigner]

Sorry, I just wanted the output from the run. Can you post that or send to [email protected]?

[ocefpaf]

Sorry, I just wanted the output from the run. Can you post that or send to [email protected]?

You can view it here: https://dev.azure.com/conda-forge/84710dde-1620-425b-80d0-4cf5baca359d/_apis/build/builds/748813/logs/13

[conda-forge-webservices]

Hi! This is the friendly automated conda-forge-linting service.

I was trying to look for recipes to lint for you, but it appears we have a merge conflict.
Please try to merge or rebase with the base branch to resolve this conflict.

Please ping the 'conda-forge/core' team (using the @ notation in a comment) if you believe this is a bug.

[dopplershift]

@conda-forge-admin, please rerender

[github-actions]

Hi! This is the friendly automated conda-forge-webservice.

I tried to rerender for you, but it looks like there was nothing to do.

This message was generated by GitHub actions workflow run https://github.com/conda-forge/libnetcdf-feedstock/actions/runs/5941701029.

[conda-forge-webservices]

Hi! This is the friendly automated conda-forge-linting service.

I just wanted to let you know that I linted all conda-recipes in your PR (recipe) and found it was in an excellent condition.

[zklaus]

@DennisHeimbigner, I shaped up this PR again in case the log is still useful. It seems to boil down to the extract below.

I realize that you may already have progressed beyond this in the debugging. Is it still useful?

operable program or batch file.
	log_level changed to 15
	HDF5 error messages have been turned off.
	NC4_create: path test_netcdf4_python.nc cmode 0x1000 parameters 0000000000000000
	HDF5 error messages turned on.
			nc4_create_file: path test_netcdf4_python.nc mode 0x1000
			nc4_grp_list_add: name / 
				nc4_create_file: set HDF raw chunk cache to size 16777216 nelems 4133 preemption 0.750000
					NC4_new_provenance: ncid 0x0
		nc_inq_format: ncid 0x10000
		NC4_inq_format_extended: ncid 0x10000
		nc_inq_typeids: ncid 0x10000
		NC4_inq: ncid 0x10000
		NC4_inq: ncid 0x10000
		nc_inq_grps: ncid 0x10000
	NC4_close: ncid 0x10000
			nc4_close_hdf5_file: h5->path test_netcdf4_python.nc abort 0
			sync_netcdf4_file
		*** NetCDF-4 Internal Metadata: int_ncid 0x0 ext_ncid 0x10000
		FILE - path: test_netcdf4_python.nc cmode: 0x1001 parallel: 0 redef: 0 fill_mode: 0 no_write: 0 next_nc_grpid: 1
		 GROUP - / nc_grpid: 0 nvars: 0 natts: 0
			nc4_rec_write_groups_types: grp->hdr.name /
			nc4_rec_write_metadata: grp->hdr.name /, bad_coord_order 0
					NC4_write_ncproperties
			nc4_rec_grp_HDF5_del: grp->name /
				nc4_rec_grp_HDF5_del: closing group /
			nc4_close_netcdf4_file: h5->path test_netcdf4_python.nc abort 0
					NC4_clear_provenance
			nc4_rec_grp_del_att_data: grp->name /
			nc4_rec_grp_del: grp->name /
					NC4_clear_provenance
					NCZ_clear_provenance

[DennisHeimbigner]

Thanks, but I guess that did not produce the info I wanted. Oh well.
You can kill this PR.

[dopplershift]

Looks like that's a problem in the run_test.bat we have here based on the only error I see:

(base) %SRC_DIR%>conda activate "%PREFIX%" 
'-c' is not recognized as an internal or external command,
operable program or batch file.
	log_level changed to 15
	HDF5 error messages have been turned off.

[zklaus]

I'm sorry to have created some confusion here. The fix suggested in #182 (comment) is not applicable for 4.9.2 (c.f. discussion in #182). The fact that the debug build behaves differently here than the release build is interesting, but not a solution. We have to wait for 4.9.3.