Field combination #785
Merged
Field combination #785
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
sadielbartholomew
approved these changes
Jun 14, 2024
Member
sadielbartholomew
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Minor comments but overall I am happy, so please merge when you have considered those (or upon request I can do a re-review). Thanks.
Co-authored-by: Sadie L. Bartholomew <sadie.bartholomew@ncas.ac.uk>
Co-authored-by: Sadie L. Bartholomew <sadie.bartholomew@ncas.ac.uk>
Co-authored-by: Sadie L. Bartholomew <sadie.bartholomew@ncas.ac.uk>
Member
|
@davidhassell I've responded regarding your comments and all is clarified. Seems like we're in a state to merge now. Thanks. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Fixes #784
Notes
The changes to
test_functions.pyare left-over linting from a previous PR.The changes to
cf.FIeld._binary_operationlook scarier than they are :). We've essentailly just moved from 2 cases (axis defined by dim coord, or axis defined by aux coord) to 3 cases (axis defined by dim coord, or axis defined by aux coord, or discrete axis), and the rest is largely just a bit code reorganisation around that (this is old and horrible code!)This doesn't do what we might hope for in the DSG discrete axis case, but that's not a fault of this code. In this case, it's doing the right thing with the discrete axes, but is the non-discrete axes that unexpected broadcasting, because these axes have no identifying coordinates - that a sperate issue to be dealt with elsewhere.