3.11.1.mergeback #6273
3.11.1.mergeback #6273
Conversation
* PoC monkeypatch precision. * [pre-commit.ci] auto fixes from pre-commit.com hooks for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci * Add FUTURE flag. * FutureWarning. * Corrected behaviour and added tests. * Corrected behaviour and added tests. * What's New entry. * Make sensitive to cf-units version. * Further test improvements. * Clearer FutureWarning text. * Use a cf-units subclass instead. * Rename _IrisUnit to Unit. --------- Co-authored-by: pre-commit-ci[bot] <66853113+pre-commit-ci[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
* pin dask <2024.9 * update lockfiles * update for pypi * add whatsnew, fix tests * skip failing doctests
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #6273 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 89.85% 89.85%
=======================================
Files 88 88
Lines 23385 23385
Branches 4357 4357
=======================================
Hits 21012 21012
Misses 1646 1646
Partials 727 727 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
pp-mo
left a comment
pp-mo
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
OK I think it finally makes sense to me now !
It seems a peculiarly complicated way to do it, which we never actually did before
(e.g. #6104 #5921 #5794 ).
However the actual resulting changes are exactly those (very few) you expect
And I guess the result makes a safer basis for any possible future need to merge again between the 2 branches
I think on advice of @trexfeathers ?
To clarify: the difference here was because |
4 participants
Merge the PR into main using a MERGE COMMIT (not a squash commit)