GUNW/GCOV - Possible issue with frame labeling as partial / full

[piyushrpt]

Example product NISAR_L2_PR_GUNW_024_026_D_065_026_4000_SH_20260628T001542_20260628T001617_20260722T001541_20260722T001616_P05023_N_F_J_001 : https://search.earthdata.nasa.gov/search/granules?p=C2854335566-ASF&pg[0][v]=f&pg[0][id]=NISAR_L2_PR_GUNW_024_026_D_065_026_4000_SH_20260628T001542_20260628T001617_20260722T001541_20260722T001616_P05023_N_F_J_001&pg[0][gsk]=-start_date&q=nisar%20gunw

The frame is labelled as a full frame product, but overviews and data in the file suggest partial coverage only.

The corresponding GCOV
NISAR_L2_PR_GCOV_026_026_D_065_4005_DHDH_A_20260722T001541_20260722T001616_P05023_N_F_J_001 also appears to be labelled as full frame even though coverage appears to be partial.

[hfattahi]

Hi @piyushrpt , thanks for the feedback and sorry for slow response. This is a missing data issue that we are dealing with here. The processor is processing whatever got to it. And indeed the observation fully covers the frame and therefore the frame is indeed full frame in the sense of observation coverage. See attached screenshot showing the L0B coverage (red) vs the frame of interest (in Blue).
I confirmed that there is a significant portion of observation missing for the L0B and that is why the downstream products starting from RSLC look dark (because there was no real data!).
We are working on dealing with missing data better in near future. At a minimum I'm hoping for more robust time tagging the pulses when there is missing data, more meaningful valid data mask and hopefully a metric that would justify the valid content of the product. This will be different from F/P in filename and most likely will be an accompanying metadata in HDF5c and in lightweight iso/.met files which should be then possible to populate in CMR etc.