You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Based on xarray/#4208 (comment), Pint should implement deterministic hashing for Quantity wrapped Dask Arrays. This is a recommended step in implementing the Dask collection interface that I skipped in #1129.
This can be done in one of two ways: either implementing __dask_tokenize__ in the Quantity class, or registering a function with dask.base.normalize_token. The return value is the same. I'm wondering if there is a preference, since it seems that Pint tokenizes unit operations and I don't know if this would interfere with that. If there is no interference, I think __dask_tokenize__ would be better since it is cleaner.
I can follow up with a PR following any discussion.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Based on xarray/#4208 (comment), Pint should implement deterministic hashing for Quantity wrapped Dask Arrays. This is a recommended step in implementing the Dask collection interface that I skipped in #1129.
This can be done in one of two ways: either implementing
__dask_tokenize__
in the Quantity class, or registering a function withdask.base.normalize_token
. The return value is the same. I'm wondering if there is a preference, since it seems that Pint tokenizes unit operations and I don't know if this would interfere with that. If there is no interference, I think__dask_tokenize__
would be better since it is cleaner.I can follow up with a PR following any discussion.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: