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/pull/3493#issuecomment-554370601,https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/3493,554370601,MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDU1NDM3MDYwMQ==,14808389,2019-11-15T14:04:41Z,2019-11-15T14:49:32Z,MEMBER,"ahh, now this
```python
cls = staticmethod(lambda *args: Variable(*args).chunk())
```
makes a lot more sense, I didn't understand the purpose of `VariableSubclassobjects` before. Yes, that may potentially save us some code. I'll try it out and submit a PR for `Variable`

We didn't go back & forth re fixtures yet. I'll also investigate the overlap, but I think it's only partial.","{""total_count"": 0, ""+1"": 0, ""-1"": 0, ""laugh"": 0, ""hooray"": 0, ""confused"": 0, ""heart"": 0, ""rocket"": 0, ""eyes"": 0}",,519490511
https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/3493#issuecomment-554222017,https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/3493,554222017,MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDU1NDIyMjAxNw==,5635139,2019-11-15T05:46:14Z,2019-11-15T05:46:14Z,MEMBER,"Overall the tests are great, and the breadth of coverage is impressive. That's more important than their form!

The way I was thinking about leveraging existing tests is that there are 
a) some tests that test existing functions at least _run_ on pint-backed arrays and 
b) some tests that test whether the units work correctly when used in xarray

Any opportunities to use existing code would be on (a). In the above linked `Variable` tests, we re-run all the tests for a dask-backed Variable by inheriting from the test class, and `xfail` those that don't work. (though sounds like you think that wouldn't work in this case?)

> We could also try to use helper functions for data creation, but while that reduces the code it also makes understanding it a little bit harder.

Yes, there's some repetition. Did we go back & forth before re putting some of the duplicated setup in fixtures? That could cut down some boilerplate if there's a lot of overlap (though if there's only partial overlap, also increase complication, as you point out)

","{""total_count"": 0, ""+1"": 0, ""-1"": 0, ""laugh"": 0, ""hooray"": 0, ""confused"": 0, ""heart"": 0, ""rocket"": 0, ""eyes"": 0}",,519490511
https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/3493#issuecomment-554113722,https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/3493,554113722,MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDU1NDExMzcyMg==,14808389,2019-11-14T22:36:51Z,2019-11-14T22:36:51Z,MEMBER,"hmm... well, I certainly agree the tests are often quite verbose (maybe too verbose) and sometimes also test functionality of pint (e.g. when incompatible, compatible and identical units are tried). I didn't check, but I don't remember any overlaps with tests from `test_dataarray.py` or `test_dataset.py` (if that's what you meant). 

To reduce the code, it might be worth to only test compatible units. We could also try to use helper functions for data creation, but while that reduces the code it also makes understanding it a little bit harder.

If `Variable` is part of the external API it definitely needs tests.

Reusing tests from `test_dataarray.py` / `test_dataset.py` / `test_variable.py` is tempting, but I don't think it is possible unless we rewrite them. Am I missing something?","{""total_count"": 0, ""+1"": 0, ""-1"": 0, ""laugh"": 0, ""hooray"": 0, ""confused"": 0, ""heart"": 0, ""rocket"": 0, ""eyes"": 0}",,519490511
https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/3493#issuecomment-554034633,https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/3493,554034633,MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDU1NDAzNDYzMw==,5635139,2019-11-14T19:09:55Z,2019-11-14T19:09:55Z,MEMBER,"I was predominately suggesting that as a way of saving your time & code on the margin (`test_units.py` is 4330 LOC!), and it seems like there's some overlap in code that's testing whether functions work at all, before whether the units are working correctly (though agree there's a Variable / DataArray distinction).

As from any time or code savings, I think that it's not strictly necessary to test `Variable` separately from `Dataset` & `DataArray`—it is implicit but it's also the external API—what do others think?","{""total_count"": 0, ""+1"": 0, ""-1"": 0, ""laugh"": 0, ""hooray"": 0, ""confused"": 0, ""heart"": 0, ""rocket"": 0, ""eyes"": 0}",,519490511
https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/3493#issuecomment-553996209,https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/3493,553996209,MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDU1Mzk5NjIwOQ==,14808389,2019-11-14T17:36:14Z,2019-11-14T17:37:10Z,MEMBER,"thanks for reviewing, @max-sixty 

I did not plan to add tests for `Variable`, but that might be an oversight on my part: I have been writing tests for the functions / methods in `api.rst` where `Variable` is listed as part of the `Advanced API`, which means I ignored it. Also, if my understanding of xarray's internals is correct, `Variable` is used in both `DataArray` and `Dataset` operations, so the tests on these should implicitly also test `Variable`. Considering that implicit is usually not a good idea, should I add tests for `Variable`?

I don't think inheritance will help much, but that example could definitely be used as a reference / inspiration.","{""total_count"": 0, ""+1"": 0, ""-1"": 0, ""laugh"": 0, ""hooray"": 0, ""confused"": 0, ""heart"": 0, ""rocket"": 0, ""eyes"": 0}",,519490511
https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/3493#issuecomment-553681522,https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/3493,553681522,MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDU1MzY4MTUyMg==,5635139,2019-11-14T01:28:07Z,2019-11-14T01:28:07Z,MEMBER,"While it won't cover all the use cases, check out https://github.com/pydata/xarray/blob/master/xarray/tests/test_variable.py#L1819 when you get a chance; it's possible that inheriting from that test with a pint array might give you some tests for free","{""total_count"": 0, ""+1"": 0, ""-1"": 0, ""laugh"": 0, ""hooray"": 0, ""confused"": 0, ""heart"": 0, ""rocket"": 0, ""eyes"": 0}",,519490511
https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/3493#issuecomment-553680619,https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/3493,553680619,MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDU1MzY4MDYxOQ==,5635139,2019-11-14T01:24:15Z,2019-11-14T01:24:15Z,MEMBER,Thanks a lot as ever @keewis !,"{""total_count"": 0, ""+1"": 0, ""-1"": 0, ""laugh"": 0, ""hooray"": 0, ""confused"": 0, ""heart"": 0, ""rocket"": 0, ""eyes"": 0}",,519490511
https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/3493#issuecomment-552154627,https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/3493,552154627,MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDU1MjE1NDYyNw==,14808389,2019-11-10T01:54:38Z,2019-11-10T13:48:51Z,MEMBER,"this should be ready for review and merge, unless anyone wants tests for `auto_combine` or `map_blocks`? I skipped `auto_combine` because it is listed as deprecated, and `map_blocks` because until now I avoided testing `pint+dask` (if I understand it correctly, `map_blocks` without `dask` is `apply_ufunc`?).

I will add tests for `Dataset.broadcast_like` and `DataArray.broadcast_like` in a new PR and then go over all tests up until now to fix any style inconsistencies and obvious errors. After that, I guess we have to wait on pint?

Edit: the failing `distributed` test on MacOSX as well as the timeout for the docs should be unrelated, I think","{""total_count"": 1, ""+1"": 1, ""-1"": 0, ""laugh"": 0, ""hooray"": 0, ""confused"": 0, ""heart"": 0, ""rocket"": 0, ""eyes"": 0}",,519490511