Update diag_shapeselect.py to work with shapely v2 #3283
Conversation
|
Should I try to reproduce the results of this diagnostic by using the preprocessor, or would that belong in another PR? |
lukruh
changed the title
|
@esmvalbot Please run recipe_shapeselect.yml |
|
Since @remi-kazeroni asked, ESMValBot will run recipe recipe_shapeselect.yml as soon as possible, output will be generated here |
|
ESMValBot is sorry to report it failed to run recipe recipe_shapeselect.yml: exit is 1, output has been generated here |
I'd say, let's get this in since you have already written a fix for the diagnostic. It's a pity we missed the cut for the release but it's nice to have a fix already available in case someone tries to run the recipe with the v2.9 released version. If you like, you could try to reproduce the results of this recipe using the preprocessor instead but I would do that in a separate PR. Maybe you could reuse this approach from recipe_extract_shape.yml |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for your work, @lukruh! The fix works fine for me locally! The netcdf output files produced are identical to those obtained with v2.8. Could you please go through the checklist of the PR to tick relevant items and remove or cross-out others (like this)?
Would you also consider adding yourself as a maintainer of this unmaintained recipe? That would be really helpful for future issues with this recipe 👍
@valeriupredoi, shall I let you have another look at this when you have time? 🍻
lukruh
added
approved by scientific reviewer
and removed
looking for scientific reviewer
labels
|
Thanks @remi-kazeroni for reviewing the changes and comparing the results. I added myself as a maintainer for the recipe. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
looking very good, many thanks @lukruh - and cheers muchly for adding yourself as recipe maintainer, very kind of you 🍺
|
also cheers @remi-kazeroni for doing the heavy lifting review 🍺 |
|
@remi-kazeroni just as apost-scriptum, do we know why did the bot fail with a |
@valeriupredoi - The |
|
gotcha cheers @remi-kazeroni 👍 Can we not grant the bot access to the dir? No need to reply if this has been discusses before - am a bit rusty when it comes to the bot 😁 |
…_RTW * recipe_test_workflow_prototype: (237 commits) Add version to dataset in python example recipe to avoid "Unknown file format" issue on JASMIN (#3322) CMORizer for NASA MERRA reanalysis (#3039) Add `OBS-maintainers` team to documentation on OBS data maintenance and CMORizer reviews (#3335) Fixed provenance tracking for NCL multipanel PNGs (#3332) Cmorizer for NOAA-CIRES-20CR v3 reanalysis (clt, clwvi, hus, prw, rlut, rlutcs, rsut, rsutcs) (#3137) [Condalock] Update Linux condalock file (#3321) Slight refactoring of diag `galytska23/select_variables_for_tigramite.py` for generality and portability (for Changelog v2.10: authors: @valeriupredoi and @egalytska) (#3298) Removed recipe_carvalhais14nat from list of broken recipes (#3319) add Romain Beucher to CITATION as contributor (#3318) update `mamba` version in readthedocs configuration docs builds (#3310) [Github Actions] Compress all bash shell setters into one default option per workflow (#3315) [condalock] update conda lock creation Github Action workflow and ship updated (bot-generated) conda-lock file (#3307) Allow NCL unit conversion `kg s-1` -> `GtC y-1` (#3300) Add list of failing recipes for v2.9.0 release (#3294) Update diag_shapeselect.py to work with shapely v2 (#3283) Update release schedule after release of v2.9.0 (#3289) Add merge instructions to release instructions (#3292) Made sklearn test backwards-compatible with sklearn < 1.3 (#3285) Add release notes for v2.9 (#3266) Add release notes for v2.9 (#3266) ...
Description
This pull request adjusts the
diag_shapeselect.pydiagnostic to work with the latest version of shapely (2+).This partly solves #3242.
recipe_shapeselect.ymldoes not work with shapely 2 #3242Before you get started
Checklist
It is the responsibility of the author to make sure the pull request is ready to review. The icons indicate whether the item will be subject to the 🛠 Technical or 🧪 Scientific review.
🛠 Any changed dependencies have been added or removed correctlyNew or updated recipe/diagnostic
🧪 Recipe is well documented🧪 Figure(s) and data look as expected from literature🛠 Provenance information has been addedNew or updated data reformatting script
🛠 Documentation is available🛠 The dataset has been added to the CMOR check recipe🧪 Numbers and units of the data look physically meaningfulTo help with the number of pull requests: