Closed kmuehlbauer closed 1 year ago
@mgrover1 I've refactored the naming per your suggestion.
Merging #87 (87537e7) into main (3435b08) will decrease coverage by
0.25%
. The diff coverage is75.40%
.
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #87 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 88.00% 87.75% -0.25%
==========================================
Files 18 19 +1
Lines 3227 3284 +57
==========================================
+ Hits 2840 2882 +42
- Misses 387 402 +15
Flag | Coverage Δ | |
---|---|---|
unittests | 87.75% <75.40%> (-0.25%) |
:arrow_down: |
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
Impacted Files | Coverage Δ | |
---|---|---|
xradar/accessors.py | 59.32% <37.50%> (-8.86%) |
:arrow_down: |
xradar/georeference/projection.py | 82.75% <82.75%> (ø) |
|
xradar/georeference/__init__.py | 100.00% <100.00%> (ø) |
|
xradar/georeference/transforms.py | 100.00% <100.00%> (ø) |
|
xradar/model.py | 95.50% <100.00%> (+0.07%) |
:arrow_up: |
Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.
@mgrover1 I'm ironing out the CI/doc issues. We can let this sit another while. No rush for now to get this in.
This is the direct link to the docs with a plotting example:
@mgrover1 Heads-up, I've found some problems with the docs which are slightly related to this PR and I'll add that here. I'll also add some more code to model.py for the sitecoords.
I've also found an issue that get_x_y_z didn't take the radar site altitude into account, I've fixed this too.
@mgrover1 I'll merge tomorrow, if no-one beats me to it.
I've rearranged/squashed the commits into two for rebase-merge. Getting this when CI is green.
This adds
spatial_ref
to the datasets when georeferencing. That way users can easily wrap this into cartopy and use this for georeferenced plotting.