You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Describe the issue:
In order for is_valid to be applicable across a dimension of a datacube through a reducer, we cannot fulfil the requirement is_valid(x = [null,null]) => true, because under the hood the dimension ends up being an array too, so is_valid(x = [null,null]) => [False, False]. Removing support for checking validity of arrays would make our implementation easier. My impression is that the purpose of is_valid is to filter array elements anyways, so don't think this would be very detrimental at all to the utility of this process.
Proposed solution:
Update the schema for x to something like:
@LukeWeidenwalker I think you are misunderstanding the example. Please keep in mind you don't need to check the array content. An array or object is always valid data: "Thus all arrays, objects and strings are valid, regardless of their content."
Process ID: is_valid
Describe the issue:
In order for is_valid to be applicable across a dimension of a datacube through a reducer, we cannot fulfil the requirement
is_valid(x = [null,null]) => true
, because under the hood the dimension ends up being an array too, sois_valid(x = [null,null]) => [False, False]
. Removing support for checking validity of arrays would make our implementation easier. My impression is that the purpose ofis_valid
is to filter array elements anyways, so don't think this would be very detrimental at all to the utility of this process.Proposed solution:
Update the schema for
x
to something like:An optional extension would be to also drop support for
object
.Additional context:
We've already removed support for arrays and objects from comparisons in #422
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: