Closed keewis closed 4 weeks ago
we're still missing an implementation for persist
, which I skipped mostly because I wasn't sure how to test that. @TomNicholas, would you like to help me with that? If so, feel free to directly push to this PR.
we're still missing an implementation for persist, which I skipped mostly because I wasn't sure how to test that. @TomNicholas, would you like to help me with that? If so, feel free to directly push to this PR.
I'm happy to help, but I think that (a) persist
is much more niche than load
and compute
, so isn't as important to be in there before release, and (b) it's a separate method rather than a bugfix to this PR so it would make more sense for me to add that in a follow-up PR and we just merge this one without persist
.
that would be fine with me.
That leaves us with the question whether we should guard against chunk
with non-existing dims, and after resolving that we should be ready for a final review.
whether we should guard against chunk with non-existing dims
We should, see https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/9670#discussion_r1815486043
We should, see #9670 (comment)
yeah, I saw that one after posting. Should be done now, though.
actually, I just tried to compute a DataTree
object without chunked arrays (while trying to investigated your comment on chunksizes
), and I got an ugly error. I'm investigating, but should not take too long to fix.
Tell me what you think about the reworded docstrings of chunksizes
/ Dataset.chunks
, but otherwise this should be good to go, too.
Looks good! Let's merge.
(I just noticed that DataArray.chunksizes
has the same issue, so I'll change that, too)
NamedArray.chunksizes
too hahaha
should be good now, hopefully
For now this only contains
compute
andload
, but in implementing those I've found a bug incopy
: we don't actually (shallow) copy the variables, which means that my implementation ofcompute
would modify the original tree.