[localprocessing] processing.py updates

[clausmichele]

Adapted the syntax to comply with the new versions of the dependencies.

[soxofaan]

is this related to the version bumps of #409?

[clausmichele]

Yes indeed

[soxofaan]

I probably didn't make myself clear when I proposed to split up #407 :
these dependency bumps should be part of PR #411 and not be done as a separate PR (#409 in this case)

(I guess it's the same thing with #410 and the rioxarray bump of #409)

[clausmichele]

I probably didn't make myself clear when I proposed to split up #407 : these dependency bumps should be part of PR #411 and not be done as a separate PR (#409 in this case)

(I guess it's the same thing with #410 and the rioxarray bump of #409)

indeed, I will merge the two PRs

[PondiB]

👍🏾

[soxofaan]

Unless I'm missing something, I think this can be done more compactly with:

for name, func in inspect.getmembers(
    openeo_processes_dask.process_implementations,
    inspect.isfunction,
):
    process_registry[name] = Process(
        spec=getattr(openeo_processes.specs, name),
        implementation=func
    )

Also, wouldn't it be better that openeo_processes_dask provide helpers to list implementations/spec, instead of having to use ugly inspect.getmembers and getattr constructs?

[clausmichele]

@LukeWeidenwalker sorry if I tag you again, but I wasn't involved in this development of openeo-processes-dask so I couldn't tell the reason.

[LukeWeidenwalker]

Ah apologies, I missed this tag - yes, agree with Stefaan, this is something openeo-processes-dask could do better - have created an issue to do this at some point!
Open-EO/openeo-processes-dask#92

[clausmichele]

@soxofaan please merge this when you have time, so that we can include it in a release before SRR5

[soxofaan]

merged in master