html_url,issue_url,id,node_id,user,created_at,updated_at,author_association,body,reactions,performed_via_github_app,issue
https://github.com/pydata/xarray/issues/684#issuecomment-167404601,https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/684,167404601,MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDE2NzQwNDYwMQ==,1217238,2015-12-27T12:04:43Z,2015-12-27T12:04:43Z,MEMBER,"Hmm. We currently use `np.ma.masked_where` to construct a masked array, which sometimes creates masked arrays with as a scalar mask (`mask=False`):

```
>>> np.ma.masked_where(np.arange(3) < -10, np.arange(3))
masked_array(data = [0 1 2],
             mask = False,
       fill_value = 999999)
```

I'm not entirely sure if these are actually valid masked arrays or not (maybe @jhamman or someone who uses masked arrays more often than me would know?), but I agree that it's not very useful for xray to return them. An alternative would be to use the `MaskedArray` constructor, which does not have this issue:

```
>>> np.ma.MaskedArray(np.arange(3), np.arange(3) < -10)
masked_array(data = [0 1 2],
             mask = [False False False],
       fill_value = 999999)
```

This seems like better behavior to me.

If you're interested in putting together a fix, here's the relevant place in xray:
https://github.com/xray/xray/blob/1c908bebff4c621c959d1bc8f78b4e4298ee87ce/xray/core/dataarray.py#L993
","{""total_count"": 0, ""+1"": 0, ""-1"": 0, ""laugh"": 0, ""hooray"": 0, ""confused"": 0, ""heart"": 0, ""rocket"": 0, ""eyes"": 0}",,123971294