issue_comments: 1530111638

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/pull/7799#issuecomment-1530111638 https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/7799 1530111638 IC_kwDOAMm_X85bM6aW 35968931 2023-05-01T19:30:05Z 2023-05-01T19:30:05Z MEMBER

I was not aware of https://github.com/pydata/xarray/issues/6894, which is definitely my bad for not searching properley before setting off smile

No worries! :grin:

It looks like the changes I'm proposing here are probably orthogonal to work in https://github.com/pydata/xarray/issues/6894 though?

I think generally yes they are, I agree.

the goal of this PR is to generalise the existing unit testing to make it a bit easier to run tests with different unit libraries

Any work that helps generalise xarray's support of units beyond specifically just pint is going to be useful!

My main point to draw your attention to is the idea that eventually, one-day, it would be nice to move all array-library specific testing out of the xarray core repo in favour of an approach similar to that proposed in #6894.

I think that testing for unit libraries is a bit less general than the duck array testing stuff, because there's a host of extra information you need to be a unit library compared to a general duck array.

This is also true. Maybe that means for example the base class you are writing here has a long-term future as an optional part of xarray's testing framework in #6894, specifically for use when testing units libraries? Just thinking out loud

 
{
    "total_count": 0,
    "+1": 0,
    "-1": 0,
    "laugh": 0,
    "hooray": 0,
    "confused": 0,
    "heart": 0,
    "rocket": 0,
    "eyes": 0
}
   1690019325