Mocked PPFields need a useable _data property. #2395
Merged
Conversation
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
Member
|
@pp-mo please may you rebase/retarget this to it's good to go apart from that, in my view |
Merged
pp-mo
force-pushed
the
dask_pp_tests_fix
branch
from
629e9df to
7a17317
Compare
Member
Author
|
Done. passes 😁 ! |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
A mock replacing a PPField now behaves differently in the PPField.data call (in pp.py).
It used to have
isinstance(data, biggus.Array), to which Mock replies 'False'.Now has
is_lazy_data(data), which translates tohasattr(data, 'compute'), to which Mock replies True.It seems that np.array(mock) is ok, but
np.ma.masked_array(mock)does something nasty.