Closed Mikejmnez closed 1 year ago
hmm I keep having some issues with importing xoak...
Merging #354 (a5083ba) into main (20c1a5d) will decrease coverage by
0.04%
. The diff coverage is95.87%
.
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #354 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 94.74% 94.71% -0.04%
==========================================
Files 9 9
Lines 3940 3932 -8
Branches 857 858 +1
==========================================
- Hits 3733 3724 -9
Misses 131 131
- Partials 76 77 +1
Flag | Coverage Δ | |
---|---|---|
unittests | 94.71% <95.87%> (-0.04%) |
:arrow_down: |
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
Impacted Files | Coverage Δ | |
---|---|---|
oceanspy/subsample.py | 97.31% <93.44%> (-0.39%) |
:arrow_down: |
oceanspy/utils.py | 88.60% <100.00%> (+1.73%) |
:arrow_up: |
:mega: We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more
Added some testing. After tests pass again, I will merge this PR...
This PR:
subsample.mooring_array
which now uses xoak (with help from @malmans2). Quick benchmark shows a speed up by x5. This is mostly because of removal of nested for loops that were no longer needed.mooring_array
with LLC data (with faces) without explicitly computing cutout (before, there was need to first compute cutout, then mooring. Now all this can happen insidesubsample.mooring_array
).With regard to 5, the following now works with either ECCO or LLC4320:
As before, mooring array follows great circle paths. Thus, in the case only the end points of a mooring array are given (like in the example above), the actual path will NOT be a straight line.