-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 354
fix for failing numcodecs.zarr3 codecs #3326
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
fix for failing numcodecs.zarr3 codecs #3326
Conversation
83413cb
to
16bd1c7
Compare
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #3326 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 94.54% 94.54%
=======================================
Files 78 78
Lines 9423 9423
=======================================
Hits 8909 8909
Misses 514 514
🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
I improved this fix, avoiding the extra copy which I introduced before. Basically, this change reverts the codec pipeline modifications introduced in #2851 and provides an alternative fix for handling chunks at the end of the array when the chunk shape does not evenly divide the array shape. |
I had a look, but I don't know this part of the code well and that function has no comments or docstring(!), so I'm not sure how much my review is worth. If the tests pass and someone who knows the code a bit better gives it a thumbs-up (cc @dcherian) then I think we can merge. but why are we fixing this in zarr python, instead of in the individual codecs? |
I actually tried the solution proposed in #2900 (comment), but it was breaking a handful of other tests in numcodecs... This PR is basically an improved version of #2851, which also does not require copies in downstream codecs and (I think) therefore should be preferred. |
Closes #2900.
I did not add a unit test because it was already mentioned in #2900 that all numcodecs should be better tested in CI, but I guess that belongs into another PR.
You can verify that it works by running the following script:
TODO:
docs/user-guide/*.rst
changes/