Closed juliettelavoie closed 1 year ago
I just saw that clisops_subset
still exists as is. I think that we should rather have:
def clisops_subset(ds, region):
warning(blabla)
ds_subset = xs.spatial.subset(ds, region)
return ds_subset
So as not to duplicate the code twice and have an outdated version, especially since the new function should work perfectly well with the old arguments.
I just saw that
clisops_subset
still exists as is. I think that we should rather have:def clisops_subset(ds, region): warning(blabla) ds_subset = xs.spatial.subset(ds, region) return ds_subset
So as not to duplicate the code twice and have an outdated version, especially since the new function should work perfectly well with the old arguments.
done!
In extract_dataset
, we ask for the name in the definition of the region in order to update cat:domain
. This field was not necessary in clisops_subset
, but I made it necessary in spatial.subset
.
Pull Request Checklist:
number
) and pull request (:pull:number
) has been addedWhat kind of change does this PR introduce?
sel
: Instead of cutting on lat-lon (for ERA5-Land), I want to cut in rlat-rlon (for RDRS). I want this to be only defined in the config. I know it is a bit weird to put a non-clisops method in theclisops_subset
function, but I also call this function in my workflow and I need it to cut the region regardless of if it is defined in rlat-rlon or lat-lon. Would it be too much of a breaking change to change the name of the function ?Does this PR introduce a breaking change?
not, if we don't change the name of
clisops_subset
Other information: