408 check out contiguous channel property for discrete data

[tensionhead]

Changes Summary

This PR does 2 things, but can't follow the original idea about contiguous channel labels

• new attributes for SpikeData: .channel_idx and .unit_idx, holding the np.unique results
• .channel/.unit property lookups are no longer re-computed and hence as fast as they should be
• checks for integer data type of .data for DiscreteData

I hope I captured what you had in mind @kshapcott, here's an example how it works now:

spd = spy.SpikeData(data = 4 * np.ones((5,3), dtype=int), channel=['my_only_channel'])

# assigned label
spd.channel
>>> array(['my_only_channel'], dtype='<U15')

# there's only channel 4
spd.channel_idx
>>> array([4])

# default label
spd.unit
>>> array(['unit05'], dtype='<U6')

# there's only unit 4
spd.unit_idx
>>> array([4])

Note that both channel and unit use 0-indexing now, before only channel was 0-based for some reason.

Reviewer Checklist

• Are testing routines present?
• Do objects in the global package namespace perform proper parsing of their input?
• Are all docstrings complete and accurate?
• Is the CHANGELOG.md up to date?

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Base: 68.22% // Head: 68.37% // Increases project coverage by +0.15% 🎉

Coverage data is based on head (992e177) compared to base (5816ae2).
Patch coverage: 65.07% of modified lines in pull request are covered.

❗ Current head 992e177 differs from pull request most recent head 2917162. Consider uploading reports for the commit 2917162 to get more accurate results

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##              dev     #415      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   68.22%   68.37%   +0.15%     
==========================================
  Files          80       80              
  Lines        9602     9629      +27     
  Branches     1993     2007      +14     
==========================================
+ Hits         6551     6584      +33     
+ Misses       2527     2523       -4     
+ Partials      524      522       -2     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
syncopy/datatype/discrete_data.py	77.81% <65.07%> (-1.89%)	⬇️
syncopy/plotting/_helpers.py	85.91% <0.00%> (-2.82%)	⬇️
syncopy/plotting/mp_plotting.py	44.66% <0.00%> (-1.34%)	⬇️
syncopy/datatype/base_data.py	76.72% <0.00%> (-0.39%)	⬇️
syncopy/datatype/util.py	71.64% <0.00%> (+1.49%)	⬆️
syncopy/specest/compRoutines.py	92.49% <0.00%> (+2.38%)	⬆️
syncopy/specest/freqanalysis.py	68.99% <0.00%> (+3.64%)	⬆️
syncopy/specest/mtmconvol.py	92.59% <0.00%> (+7.40%)	⬆️
syncopy/specest/stft.py	81.08% <0.00%> (+8.10%)	⬆️

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

☔ View full report at Codecov.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

[tensionhead]

Ok.. now the coverage complains about lines I haven't touched, so I won't grind it any further for the moment

[KatharineShapcott]

Looks good! Should be soooo much faster for my data in combination with 403. I can make those changes if you agree.

[tensionhead]

Looks good! Should be soooo much faster for my data in combination with 403. I can make those changes if you agree.

Thx, yes please go ahead with the little changes you proposed 👍

[tensionhead]

Ok, thx for the review and the final fix ups! Shall I merge it with my super powers?

EDIT: I think you would need to do a final 1 sentence approving review if we wanna get rid of some of the red here 😀

[KatharineShapcott]

Approved

[KatharineShapcott]

Wait but aren't we still failing the code coverage check?

[tensionhead]

Wait but aren't we still failing the code coverage check?

yes, but this is not entirely reliable sadly.. we merged things in that state before ;)