Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Optional aggregation control #569

Merged
merged 8 commits into from
May 12, 2023
Merged

Conversation

aulemahal
Copy link
Contributor

@aulemahal aulemahal commented Feb 3, 2023

Change Summary

Related issue number

Checklist

  • Unit tests for the changes exist
  • Tests pass on CI
  • Documentation reflects the changes where applicable

I added a few tests, but maybe I should add more to test most of the normal operations with a catalog missing the aggregation control.

@aulemahal aulemahal changed the title Optional aggcont Optional aggregation control Feb 3, 2023
@mgrover1
Copy link
Collaborator

@aulemahal let me know when this is ready for review - happy to take a look. I think this approach makes sense.

@aulemahal aulemahal mentioned this pull request Feb 20, 2023
3 tasks
@mgrover1
Copy link
Collaborator

mgrover1 commented Mar 1, 2023

@aulemahal - following up here, is this ready for review?

@aulemahal
Copy link
Contributor Author

Sorry, I haven't had time to put on this in the last days. I still need to merge the conflicts and to add tests. I may have time in the next few days!

@mgrover1
Copy link
Collaborator

mgrover1 commented Mar 1, 2023

No worries - take your time! I just wanted to check in and see if I could help with anything

intake_esm/core.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@aulemahal aulemahal marked this pull request as ready for review May 10, 2023 22:01
@aulemahal
Copy link
Contributor Author

This is finally ready for review @mgrover1 !

intake_esm/core.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@aulemahal
Copy link
Contributor Author

Here we go. While investigating the weird conditionnal, I realized that method was broken. Fixing it made me discover another deeper bug... So here we are with another implementation of the no-agg groups construction, which I believe is somewhat simpler.

Copy link
Collaborator

@mgrover1 mgrover1 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I like this approach!!

@mgrover1 mgrover1 merged commit 33fea50 into intake:main May 12, 2023
tlvu added a commit to Ouranosinc/PAVICS-e2e-workflow-tests that referenced this pull request Aug 30, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Aggregation control still non-optional
3 participants