affine_transform: Remove inconsistencies with ndimage implementation. #205
Conversation
This file contains 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
- change offset default parameter to float - expect tuple for output_shape (and output_chunks)
Closed
GenevieveBuckley
approved these changes
May 4, 2021
GenevieveBuckley
added a commit
to GenevieveBuckley/dask-image
that referenced
this pull request
May 6, 2021
GenevieveBuckley
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 6, 2021
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
As reported by @martinschorb in #204, there are some inconsistencies in
dask_image.ndinterp.affine_transformwith respect to thendimageimplementation.This PR
scipyimplementation does. As @martinschorb points out, thescipyimplementation also works when providingoutput_shapeas andarray, so I now explicitly perform a conversion into tuple within the function to also allow for this (please object if this doesn't make sense).I don't see reasons for why the inconsistencies had been there in the first place and assume I had simply not been careful enough during the implementation. Also, there should be no backwards compatibility problem introduced by this PR.