feat!: Unify X and layers#1707
Conversation
Codecov Report❌ Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #1707 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 87.50% 85.64% -1.87%
==========================================
Files 49 49
Lines 7725 7766 +41
==========================================
- Hits 6760 6651 -109
- Misses 965 1115 +150
|
|
So re: the backed question, I think the answer is not to get rid of it, but to clarify its behavior. To do that, I think we should merge #1927 first, which may include a breaking change. If we stop allowing overriding of on-disk stores (which currently relies on inheritance form scipy.sparse private methods), then this question becomes much more simplified. The next step after #1927 would probably be to simplify it. From what I can tell, the reaosn we need to track if the file is open or not is because if writing. If everything were purely read-only, I think it would be less of an issue. My vision there would be in "backed" mode (after the two above points are implemented), we would simply take the |
Co-authored-by: Philipp A. <flying-sheep@web.de>
|
My rough plan here:
|
|
For Put that in the release note. |
…verse#1707 scverse#1707 (feat!: Unify X and layers) moved X into the layers mapping under the `None` key. Two aligned_axis_key_join layer-key tests asserted `sorted(res.layers.keys())` against named keys only, which now fails with TypeError when None is present. Switched to set comparison and explicitly included the `None` (X) key in both the outer-union and inner-intersection expectations.
XareNone#678TODO:
dtypearg: just remove? or ignore+warning? (unless we already do that, then remove)XareNone#678