Revert part of #3907 which incorrectly propogated MaskedArray info. #7296
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
@mhvk I don't claim to understand the code, but thanks ;) |
b640809 to
c104112
Compare
|
@charris - now also added a test case... Looking back, I think it is mostly that in my previous PR I didn't quite understand what the point of the various |
|
@ahaldane Could you take a look also? |
|
I haven't gone through the entire chain of changes following the PRs in history, but the changes in this PR at least make sense to me. It's just making So even though I haven't exactly understood #3907 this PR looks good to me. |
|
OK, let's give it a shot. |
charris
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 21, 2016
Revert part of #3907 which incorrectly propogated MaskedArray info.
|
Thanks Marten. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Closes #7122 (hopefully)
Basically, this restores previous behaviour. Arguably, the latter was not all that sane, but at least this is consistent, and should solve the regression reported in #7122