issue_comments: 554222017

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/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