skip NaN in extent calculation
#166
Open
Conversation
This file contains 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
asinghvi17
reviewed
Sep 25, 2024
asinghvi17
approved these changes
Sep 25, 2024
Co-authored-by: Anshul Singhvi <[email protected]>
|
The weird thing about this (that I just realised for Extents.jl as well) is that for |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This PR fixes the problem where NaNs win over other coordinates to make
NaNextents that don't work anywhere. Or do work in DimensionalData.jl and becauseNaNcomparisons always returnfalse, it just selects the maximum possible extent.To do this I switch
extremato_nan_free_extrema, which turns out to be faster anyway.This PR will be coupled with a PR for
Extents.unionandExtents.intersectionto behave the same way, and for DimensionalData.jl to check forNaNextents for the rare few that still get through.