Refactor transformations to rely on scipy directly.#86
Merged
Conversation
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #86 +/- ##
=========================================
Coverage 100.00% 100.00%
=========================================
Files 7 7
Lines 2289 2286 -3
Branches 260 262 +2
=========================================
- Hits 2289 2286 -3 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Rotations were inconsistent with the
scipyrotation system even though that's how they were asked to be defined. For example:I've refactored the whole coordinate transformation backend to rely much more on
scpiy.spatial.transform. Unfortunately it's not directly compatible withunyt_arrayorcosmo_array, so a little bit of wrapping is still needed, but much of the previous internal ambiguity around.dot(transformation)(or should it be.dot(transformation.T?) has been removed.