-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 124
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
Consistency checks #341
Consistency checks #341
Conversation
for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci
for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci
for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci
Looks like the code formatting nanny is failing on this. |
I just looked over the code changes and all of the formatting seems fine. |
ruff-format is changing something, and the hook fails if of the nannies change anything. Maybe a false positive? 🤷 |
I think so? Does the approach seem reasonable overall? I am unsure why it does not fail when we provide objects to bulk-insert. Maybe there is a check missing on the spatialindex side? |
It is just a complaint about code formatting as far as I understand. Logic and layout of PR looks fine to me. |
Okay, I think we are okay to merge. |
Ruff is complaining about your quoting. Need to fix this or it will always complain
|
did you mean to close this without merging? |
Yes, now part of #342 |
At the moment attempting to do something like:
will throw an exception because the near minimum overlap factor is greater than the leaf/index capacities. Interestingly (and for reasons I can not understand) it does not throw an exception if
[]
is replaced by actual entries. It is only an issue for an initially empty index.Either way, this PR adds some consistency checks so everything works as expected.