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
On the latest version (2022.6.0), the constituent coordinates (x,y) of the multi-indexed coordinate (yx) have asterisks next to them, implying that they are dimensional (despite the them not being named equal to their sole dimension, as stated in the docs' coordinates section).
dimension coordinates are one dimensional coordinates with a name equal to their sole dimension (marked by * when printing a dataset or data array)
Further, looking into the .coords.indexes shows that each constituent coordinate is also indexed by an instance of the same MultiIndex.
I was wondering if this change been made design and whether the documentation just need updating, or I have misunderstood something along the way.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Yes this is an intentional change part of the ongoing explicit indexes refactor. There's still some work to do on the documentation. For more details, see:
What is your issue?
As of the latest release (2022.6.0), the behaviour of MultiIndex coordinates and their constituents appears to have changed.
Creating a simple multi-indexed DataSet:
Printing the DataSet and the coordinate indices on version 2022.3.0:
Printing the DataSet and the coordinate indices on version 2022.6.0:
On the latest version (2022.6.0), the constituent coordinates (
x,y
) of the multi-indexed coordinate (yx
) have asterisks next to them, implying that they are dimensional (despite the them not being named equal to their sole dimension, as stated in the docs' coordinates section).Further, looking into the
.coords.indexes
shows that each constituent coordinate is also indexed by an instance of the same MultiIndex.I was wondering if this change been made design and whether the documentation just need updating, or I have misunderstood something along the way.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: