-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 59
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
Fix TypeError when adjusting with preloaded training dataset #1679
Conversation
Returns an empty list if a reduced dimension is not in the dataset chunks
Welcome, new contributor! It appears that this is your first Pull Request. To give credit where it's due, we ask that you add your information to the
Please make sure you've read our contributing guide. We look forward to reviewing your Pull Request shortly ✨ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good!
Sorry for overlooking that case and thanks for the fix!
No problem at all. Do I need to look into that failing check or is that expected? |
@saschahofmann Don't forget to add your author information as well! |
Adding myself to the Author list
Alright if you insist. Also added a comment to the unreleased 0.49.0 bug fixes |
@saschahofmann You can also add your info to the Zenodo file as well so that you get properly cited when the package is published there. I leave that decision up to you! |
I'll do that once I make a note worthy contribution 👍😉 |
Thanks @saschahofmann ! |
See issue #1678 for an explanation of the problem
Now, returns an empty list if a reduced dimension is not in the dataset chunks in xclim/sdba/base.py map_blocks when checking for badchunks.
Pull Request Checklist:
number
) and pull request (:pull:number
) has been addedWhat kind of change does this PR introduce?
Returns an empty list if a reduced dimension is not in the dataset chunks in xclim/sdba/base.py map_blocks when checking for badchunks
Does this PR introduce a breaking change?
No.