-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 168
Support for Fields in multiple files without a time dimension
#1835
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
Merged
Merged
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
19185aa
Support for Fields in multiple files without a `time` dimension
erikvansebille 6fdafcd
Merge branch 'main' into fix_croco_multifiles_csw
erikvansebille 4fd16ec
Fixing case where timestamps explicitly given
erikvansebille 16c249c
Merge branch 'fix_croco_multifiles_csw' of https://github.com/OceanPa…
erikvansebille File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Given the code before didn't error in
_collect_timeslices(only in the array assignment later), are there times (i.e., in other setups) where "time" isn't indimensions, but the field isn'tCS_w? Hence adding this clause could cause something else to break? Just want to understand a bit more before merging since I'm not super familiar with this codeThere was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, I understand your concern. This part of the code is so bloated that it's not easy to keep the oversight. But given that we have failing CI, something is probably going wrong. I'll look into how I can find a different, more robust way to fix this issue
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looking forward to using xarray 😁
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I looked at the code again, and I now do think this is robust code.
The functionality of the part of the code that I changed is to create a list
timeslicesof the time associated with each snapshot of a Field in a netcdf file. But if a Field doesn't have a time dimension, this operation does not make sense.So I'm pretty confident that this PR will have no major unintended consequences; it's just that other Fields without a time dimension never reach this part of the code so it's not an issue for these.
I could dig much deeper what happens to these fields then, but I suggest we leave that for a major refactor