-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 56
feat[next]: concat_where embedded (limited to 1D) #2545
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Open
havogt
wants to merge
9
commits into
GridTools:main
Choose a base branch
from
havogt:add_concat_where_embedded
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
9 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
6b18fed
feat[next]: concat_where embedded (limited to 1D)
havogt 3e014d4
add tests
havogt 147b02d
fix/skip tests
havogt 48db38b
Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/main' into add_concat_where_em…
havogt 00353d8
cleanup mask->domain
havogt 38a309e
more cleanup
havogt 90904ff
Merge branch 'main' into add_concat_where_embedded
havogt bac3da1
address review comments
havogt 4e7d636
review comment
havogt File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't fully understand where the checks for the correctness of the input domains should be done. I mean, most of the private helper functions are only called from one place, so they could assume that the input domains have been already validated at the public entry point and skip other checks. However, the overlap check is done here while the contiguous check is done later when the result of another call returns
None. I'm not sure if I'm missing something but, if possible, I'd suggest to concentrate the validation of the domains in a single point.For example, one possibility