issue_comments: 1209519085

This data as json

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/6894#issuecomment-1209519085 https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/6894 1209519085 IC_kwDOAMm_X85IF8vt 35968931 2022-08-09T15:17:12Z 2022-08-09T15:17:12Z MEMBER

you should already be able to specify a hypothesis strategy to create e.g. a random awkward array

Sounds good!

or maybe it should be just check?

Yes just check probably.

However, maybe we should just not use parametrize but instead define separate functions for each reduce operation?

But then the user writing the test code would have to write one of their own tests per xarray method wouldn't they? I think we should avoid putting that much work on them if we can. I think your current approach seems fine so far...

the pint tests use old versions of the conversion functions from pint-xarray

That's basically technical debt, so we should make a point to remove them from xarray eventually.

the tests for pint seem to increase the total test coverage of xarray https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/5692#issuecomment-1040002844. I guess that just means we'd have to improve the rest of the testsuite?

So long as @benbovy (or someone) writes new tests to cover the bugs that were revealed then this is fine.

 
{
    "total_count": 0,
    "+1": 0,
    "-1": 0,
    "laugh": 0,
    "hooray": 0,
    "confused": 0,
    "heart": 0,
    "rocket": 0,
    "eyes": 0
}
   1332231863