Open eecarres opened 3 years ago
Merging #285 (b44f998) into master (a1529cc) will not change coverage. The diff coverage is
100.00%
.
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #285 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 90.64% 90.64%
=======================================
Files 37 37
Lines 5943 5943
=======================================
Hits 5387 5387
Misses 556 556
Impacted Files | Coverage Δ | |
---|---|---|
telluric/georaster.py | 93.51% <100.00%> (ø) |
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact)
,ø = not affected
,? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update a1529cc...b44f998. Read the comment docs.
@eecarres this looks like a good way to go, although I recommend to introduce a more generic approach, something like, rasterio_kwargs
which accepts a dictionary of arguments passed to rasterio.warp.reproject
@arielze Whatever you find the most convenient. What I saw in the telluric
code was that direct calls to rasterio
reproject
were done with the option of giving all the parameters explicitly, that's why I tried to "continue with the trend". As you can see here the rasterio
call also has a kwargs
, but the rest of the parameters (except from the two I added) are explicitly defined in the telluric
calls.
As I said, you decide =D
I do agree with @arielze. These two parameters are too low level and we don't deal with them in the source code. So I think it worth to create a new **kwargs argument for merge_all
. In this case we don't need to copypaste docstring with description of these parameters into myriads of internal method and also it allows us to use new arguments that might be added in the future to rasterio.
This commit aims to expose the two available parameters in rasterio reproject method, used to control its performance