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/3739#issuecomment-784497022,https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/3739,784497022,MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDc4NDQ5NzAyMg==,10638475,2021-02-23T20:41:17Z,2021-02-23T20:41:17Z,NONE,"I got a similar error message when opening a Zarr store with datetime64 time values, where I tried to set the ""calendar"" attribute on the time axis (the attribute was unset in the original store). I've found some xarray code that appears to treat the ""calendar"" and ""units"" time attributes as special, and it essentially prevents users from setting or changing these values, even when those values are not present:
From xarray/coding/times.py:
```
class CFDatetimeCoder(VariableCoder):
def __init__(self, use_cftime=None):
self.use_cftime = use_cftime
def encode(self, variable, name=None):
dims, data, attrs, encoding = unpack_for_encoding(variable)
if np.issubdtype(data.dtype, np.datetime64) or contains_cftime_datetimes(
variable
):
(data, units, calendar) = encode_cf_datetime(
data, encoding.pop(""units"", None), encoding.pop(""calendar"", None)
)
safe_setitem(attrs, ""units"", units, name=name)
safe_setitem(attrs, ""calendar"", calendar, name=name)
return Variable(dims, data, attrs, encoding)
```","{""total_count"": 0, ""+1"": 0, ""-1"": 0, ""laugh"": 0, ""hooray"": 0, ""confused"": 0, ""heart"": 0, ""rocket"": 0, ""eyes"": 0}",,558293655
https://github.com/pydata/xarray/issues/2064#issuecomment-523968827,https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/2064,523968827,MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDUyMzk2ODgyNw==,10638475,2019-08-22T16:01:40Z,2019-08-22T16:08:58Z,NONE,"I have tried to understand why the xarray developers decided to provide their own options for concatenation. I am not an experienced user of xarray, but I can't find any discussion of how the current options for concatenation were derived.
The pandas concat() function uses the option join = {'inner', 'outer', 'left', 'right'} in order to mimic logical database join operations. If there is a reason that xarray cannot do the same, it is not obvious to me. I think the pandas options have the advantage of logical simplicity and traditional usage within database systems.
Perhaps the reason is that xarray is modeling collections of variables, rather than a single dataframe, as with pandas. But even then, it seems like the pandas rules can be applied on a per-variable basis.
","{""total_count"": 0, ""+1"": 0, ""-1"": 0, ""laugh"": 0, ""hooray"": 0, ""confused"": 0, ""heart"": 0, ""rocket"": 0, ""eyes"": 0}",,314764258
https://github.com/pydata/xarray/issues/2064#issuecomment-512005032,https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/2064,512005032,MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDUxMjAwNTAzMg==,10638475,2019-07-16T22:01:59Z,2019-07-16T22:50:39Z,NONE,"> Can you give a specific example of the behavior in question?
Here is the most specific thing I can say: If I switch the default value for data_vars to 'minimal' for concat() and open_mfdataset(), then I get a lot of failing unit tests (when running ""pytest xarray -n 4"". I may be wrong about why they are failing. The unit tests have comments in them, like ""Check pandas compatibility""; see for example, line 370 in test_duck_array_ops.py for an example instruction that raises a ValueError exception. Many failures appear to be caused by a ValueError exception being raised, like in the final example you have in your notebook.
I hope this is specific enough; I realize that I'm not deeply comprehending what the unit tests are actually supposed to be testing.
UPDATE: @shoyer it could be that unit tests are failing because, as your final example shows, you get an error for data_vars='minimal' if *any* variables have different values across datasets, when adding a new concatentation dimension. If this is the reason so many unit tests are failing, then the failures are a red herring and should probably be ignored/rewritten.","{""total_count"": 0, ""+1"": 0, ""-1"": 0, ""laugh"": 0, ""hooray"": 0, ""confused"": 0, ""heart"": 0, ""rocket"": 0, ""eyes"": 0}",,314764258
https://github.com/pydata/xarray/issues/2064#issuecomment-511987332,https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/2064,511987332,MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDUxMTk4NzMzMg==,10638475,2019-07-16T21:06:58Z,2019-07-16T21:06:58Z,NONE,"@shoyer I'm sorry I didn't look at your examples more closely at first. I see now that your first example of using data_vars='minimal' is already preserving one instance of the variable x, and I was suggesting earlier that this variable was not being included in the concatenation.
So I am not clear on why so many unit tests fail when I switch the default value for data_vars to 'minimal'. The output from your examples seems compatible with Pandas concat, though I don't understand Pandas very well yet.
I wonder if the unit tests that fail are written correctly. I have to add that I spent an entire day trying to understand the code in concat.py, by stepping through it for several unit tests. I found the code quite difficult to understand.","{""total_count"": 0, ""+1"": 0, ""-1"": 0, ""laugh"": 0, ""hooray"": 0, ""confused"": 0, ""heart"": 0, ""rocket"": 0, ""eyes"": 0}",,314764258
https://github.com/pydata/xarray/issues/2064#issuecomment-511903346,https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/2064,511903346,MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDUxMTkwMzM0Ng==,10638475,2019-07-16T17:06:46Z,2019-07-16T17:47:45Z,NONE,"@shoyer Your explanation makes sense, but there are unit tests that expect the default concat() behavior to be the same as default behavior for Pandas concat(), which tries to perform an ""outer"" join between dataframes.
Therefore, from my limited understanding, the default behavior for xarray concat() should be to preserve all variables. If this default behavior changes, then it may break code making these expectations.
Can we get a perspective from the author of concat.py, @TomNicholas ? Thanks.
Specifically, what should the default behavior of concat() be, when both datasets include a variable that does not include the concatenation dimension? Currently, the concat dimension is added, and the result is a ""stacked"" version of the variable. Others have argued that this variable should not be included in the concat() result by default, but this appears to break compatibility with Pandas concat(). Another possibility could be to include the first instance of the variable in the result set, throwing away any other instances of the same variable, so a ""stacking"" dimension is not needed. This would potentially lose information if the variable instances are not identical, however. ","{""total_count"": 0, ""+1"": 0, ""-1"": 0, ""laugh"": 0, ""hooray"": 0, ""confused"": 0, ""heart"": 0, ""rocket"": 0, ""eyes"": 0}",,314764258
https://github.com/pydata/xarray/issues/2064#issuecomment-511583067,https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/2064,511583067,MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDUxMTU4MzA2Nw==,10638475,2019-07-15T21:48:15Z,2019-07-15T21:50:50Z,NONE,"@dcherian . I believe you are correct in principle, but there is a logical problem that is expensive to evaluate. The difficult case is when two datasets have a variable with the same name, and that variable does not include the concatenation dimension. In order to align the datasets for concatenation, both variables would need to be identical. The resulting dataset would just have one (unchanged) instance of that variable, say from the first dataset. I think someone along the way decided this operation was too expensive. This is from concat.py, lines 302-307:
```
# stack up each variable to fill-out the dataset (in order)
for k in datasets[0].variables:
if k in concat_over:
vars = ensure_common_dims([ds.variables[k] for ds in datasets])
combined = concat_vars(vars, dim, positions)
insert_result_variable(k, combined)
```
So I think some consensus needs to be reached, about whether it is a good idea to load these variables into memory to check for identical-ness between them.
Or another possibility is that we leave ""unique"" variables alone: if a variable exists only once across all datasets being concatenated, we do not add the concatenation dimension to it. This might solve @xylar original poster's issue when opening a single dataset.
","{""total_count"": 0, ""+1"": 0, ""-1"": 0, ""laugh"": 0, ""hooray"": 0, ""confused"": 0, ""heart"": 0, ""rocket"": 0, ""eyes"": 0}",,314764258
https://github.com/pydata/xarray/issues/2064#issuecomment-511210149,https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/2064,511210149,MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDUxMTIxMDE0OQ==,10638475,2019-07-14T15:03:29Z,2019-07-14T21:36:03Z,NONE,"So there are some units tests that assert the behavior for open_mfdataset() is identical to the behavior for concat(). This implies that if we change the default data_vars value from ""all"" to ""minimal"" for one function, we need to change it for both functions.
@shoyer I think you suggested that concat() default behavior should change in #2145, in the same way it will change for open_mfdataset. So I am going to add this change to the pull request.
UPDATE: There is a problem with changing concat() away from having data_ vars='all'. This breaks many unit tests that check for compatibility with Pandas. What I've been told is that Pandas concat() will include all unique variables from each dataframe. This is what data_vars='all' will also do. By changing to data_vars='minimal', only data variables with the specified concatenation dimension will be included. So it seems that in order to stay compatible with Pandas, we need to include all data variables, but not add the concatenation dimension to data variables that do not already have that dimension. The problem, however, is what to do when both datasets have a variable `x` without the concatenation dimension? What should the resulting concatenation look like? I think in this case, the concat dimension *should* be added, to preserve information. It's just the unique variables that should be left alone.
Please, could someone confirm that I have understood the problem correctly? Thank you in advance.","{""total_count"": 0, ""+1"": 0, ""-1"": 0, ""laugh"": 0, ""hooray"": 0, ""confused"": 0, ""heart"": 0, ""rocket"": 0, ""eyes"": 0}",,314764258
https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/3120#issuecomment-511207340,https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/3120,511207340,MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDUxMTIwNzM0MA==,10638475,2019-07-14T14:26:42Z,2019-07-14T14:26:42Z,NONE,I'm seeing that five unit tests are failing on some of the builds. I'm looking into addressing the failing tests now.,"{""total_count"": 0, ""+1"": 0, ""-1"": 0, ""laugh"": 0, ""hooray"": 0, ""confused"": 0, ""heart"": 0, ""rocket"": 0, ""eyes"": 0}",,467773526
https://github.com/pydata/xarray/issues/2064#issuecomment-511140703,https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/2064,511140703,MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDUxMTE0MDcwMw==,10638475,2019-07-13T17:41:31Z,2019-07-13T22:51:13Z,NONE,"I'm a new developer at the SciPy 2019 Sprints, and I'm interested in making a pull request for this issue as a learning step.
@henrikca Would this be useful? Or would this conflict with your work?
I went ahead and made a pull request because it looks like a very small change, potentially.","{""total_count"": 0, ""+1"": 0, ""-1"": 0, ""laugh"": 0, ""hooray"": 0, ""confused"": 0, ""heart"": 0, ""rocket"": 0, ""eyes"": 0}",,314764258