Skip to content
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

general fixes to adapt table model #417

Closed
wants to merge 126 commits into from
Closed

general fixes to adapt table model #417

wants to merge 126 commits into from

Conversation

giovp
Copy link
Member

@giovp giovp commented Dec 21, 2023

@melonora these are some additional fixes, I think we need to remove the add_table/store_table etc. due to the merge of #329 and keep the Tables element as close as possible to the rest.

pre-commit-ci bot and others added 30 commits November 21, 2023 13:43
* [pre-commit.ci] pre-commit autoupdate

updates:
- [github.com/psf/black: 23.10.1 → 23.11.0](psf/black@23.10.1...23.11.0)
- [github.com/pre-commit/mirrors-prettier: v3.0.3 → v3.1.0](pre-commit/mirrors-prettier@v3.0.3...v3.1.0)
- [github.com/pre-commit/mirrors-mypy: v1.6.1 → v1.7.0](pre-commit/mirrors-mypy@v1.6.1...v1.7.0)
- [github.com/astral-sh/ruff-pre-commit: v0.1.3 → v0.1.6](astral-sh/ruff-pre-commit@v0.1.3...v0.1.6)

* ficx pre-precommit

---------

Co-authored-by: pre-commit-ci[bot] <66853113+pre-commit-ci[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: giovp <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: pre-commit-ci[bot] <66853113+pre-commit-ci[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
@melonora
Copy link
Collaborator

@melonora these are some additional fixes, I think we need to remove the add_table/store_table etc. due to the merge of #329 and keep the Tables element as close as possible to the rest.

Agreed, was doing that but keep losing connection in the car:)

@melonora
Copy link
Collaborator

In the other PR there is currently 1 remaining errors which relates to removing the store_tables.
We used to immediately create a zarr group if not there and store the table upon adding so removing this is a backward incompatible change. If we want to keep it this way for this PR, we need to have a check per element whether it is backed or not. What do you think?

@giovp giovp mentioned this pull request Jan 4, 2024
@LucaMarconato
Copy link
Member

@melonora can you please check if this branch can merged/removed?

@@ -672,7 +671,7 @@ def filter_by_coordinate_system(
# TODO: check whether full table dict should be returned or only those which annotate elements. Also check
# filtering with tables having potentially different keys.
if filter_tables:
tables = {}
tables: Tables = Tables(shared_keys=self._shared_keys)
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

comparing this to #410 there is a difference here. However, I am not certain that shared_keys needs to be passed here since we are returning a new SpatialData object. What do you think @giovp @LucaMarconato ?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yeah I agree, the shared keys should be instantiated in the return line 680. I think this can be closed!

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

After offline conversation with Giovanni, we agreed it is not required.

@melonora
Copy link
Collaborator

I will close this PR as all the changes have already been implemented in #410

@melonora melonora closed this Jan 17, 2024
@LucaMarconato LucaMarconato deleted the giov/multitable branch February 9, 2024 10:29
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants