issue_comments: 709672708
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/4514#issuecomment-709672708 | https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/4514 | 709672708 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDcwOTY3MjcwOA== | 6628425 | 2020-10-16T01:18:38Z | 2020-10-16T01:18:56Z | MEMBER | Thanks @mathause -- interestingly I happened to try this example out with a branch that's soon to be merged in ``` In [1]: import xarray as xr In [2]: import cftime In [3]: import numpy as np In [4]: time = xr.cftime_range("2000-02-30", "2001-01-01", freq="3M", calendar="360_day") In [5]: dates = np.asarray(time) In [6]: reference_date = xr.coding.times.infer_datetime_units(dates) In [7]: xr.coding.times.encode_cf_datetime(time) Out[7]: (array([ 0, 90, 180, 270]), 'days since 2000-02-30 00:00:00.000000', '360_day') ``` As a general point I think we should strive to be able to handle reference dates that might not be valid in all calendars (they might occur in the wild). Would we be ok labeling this as an upstream issue? |
{
"total_count": 0,
"+1": 0,
"-1": 0,
"laugh": 0,
"hooray": 0,
"confused": 0,
"heart": 0,
"rocket": 0,
"eyes": 0
} |
722437965 |