-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 18
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
skip NaN
in extent calculation
#166
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Co-authored-by: Anshul Singhvi <[email protected]>
The weird thing about this (that I just realised for Extents.jl as well) is that for |
@evetion would be good to get a review and merge on this |
LGTM, I haven't hit this specific use case yet. Can you document the behaviour in the docstring(test?) somewhere. All NaN points will still yield a NaN extent right? |
For sure, a doc comment would help. And yes all NaN still returns NaN |
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.
LGTM, I added some documentation as well.
This PR fixes the problem where NaNs win over other coordinates to make
NaN
extents that don't work anywhere. Or do work in DimensionalData.jl and becauseNaN
comparisons always returnfalse
, it just selects the maximum possible extent.To do this I switch
extrema
to_nan_free_extrema
, which turns out to be faster anyway.This PR will be coupled with a PR for
Extents.union
andExtents.intersection
to behave the same way, and for DimensionalData.jl to check forNaN
extents for the rare few that still get through.