Allow compatible mapped values in __setitem__ #7
Conversation
|
|
||
| if isinstance(obj, scipp.Variable): | ||
| return ScippDataArrayAdapter(scipp.DataArray(obj)) | ||
| return ScippDataArrayAdapter(scipp.DataArray(obj), scipp=scipp) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
A bit awkward that we have to pass the module as an arg everywhere...
Was it to avoid importing scipp in multiple places?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, making the code cleaner.
| { | ||
| 'a': sc.array(dims=['x'], values=[1, 2, 3]), | ||
| 'b': sc.array(dims=['x'], values=[11, 12, 13]), | ||
| }, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think I'm a little confused because the name above is a ScippDataArrayAdapter, so I thought it would be a sc.DataArray, like the pandas DataFrame above.
But I guess you just need a mapping of key to ArrayLike? Does this mean that you never use the .data in the DataArray?
I assume you need a structure that can be sliced/indexed. Could it be a DataGroup instead of a DataArray internally?
I realize this is besides the point of the current PR...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ScippDataArrayAdapter also handles scipp.Variable, interpreting the latter as an data array without coords.
I assume you need a structure that can be sliced/indexed. Could it be a DataGroup instead of a DataArray internally?
Using a dictcurrently, could in principle add support for Dataset and DataGroup. But not "instead of": The DataArray holds the values for a single node, the dict (or DataGroup, ...) maps to multiple nodes, just like the columns of pandas.DataFrame vs. its rows.
|
|
||
| graph = cb.Graph(g) | ||
| mapped = graph.map(node_values).reduce('c', name='d') | ||
| mapped['x'] = mapped['d'] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If I understand correctly, the 'x' here is unrelated to the 'x' dimension in
{
'a': sc.array(dims=['x'], values=[1, 2, 3]),
'b': sc.array(dims=['x'], values=[11, 12, 13]),
}above.
If so, can we use a different name here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I was asking because at first it confused me, as I thought they were related.
| g.add_edge('a', 'b') | ||
| graph = cb.Graph(g) | ||
| mapped1 = graph.map({'a': [1, 2]}).reduce('b', name='d') | ||
| mapped2 = graph.map({'a': sc.array(dims=('x',), values=[1, 2])}).reduce( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not sure I understand why this is different from the above? In mapped1 you have [1, 2] and in mapped2 a Scipp Variable. Isn't it the same as with the numpy array, that the types are different?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, but it actually raises for different reasons, this test is to ensure that both code paths work.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I guess my question was why is it raising for a different reason, I would have expected to raise with the same reason.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It is an artifact of the usual problem of having two checks in a particular order, so depending on the exact properties of the input you get one exception or the other.
|
If you still want my review, can you explain what this PR is supposed to do? This is hard to tell from the diff alone. |
It allows compatible mapped values in |
| @pytest.mark.parametrize( | ||
| 'node_values', | ||
| [ | ||
| {'a': [1, 2, 3], 'b': [11, 12, 13]}, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It seems that {'a': [1, 2, 3]} is sufficient to make the test fail with the code on main. So there seems to be no need to have multiple mapped nodes to test this behaviour. Can you add a test that only maps one node?
Co-authored-by: Jan-Lukas Wynen <j-l.wynen@hotmail.de>
This was not implemented initially for simplicity, but downstream use showed that is it essential.