Add improved comparing when dealing with NAN values#111
Merged
Conversation
huppd
reviewed
Jun 25, 2026
Co-authored-by: Daniel Hupp <daniel.hupp@meteoswiss.ch>
huppd
changed the title
huppd
previously approved these changes
Jun 25, 2026
huppd
reviewed
Jun 25, 2026
Co-authored-by: Daniel Hupp <daniel.hupp@meteoswiss.ch>
huppd
approved these changes
Jun 26, 2026
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
A value present (non-NaN) in one file but missing (NaN) in the other is a real difference -- a field or observation appeared or disappeared. The relative diff is NaN there and check_variable would treat NaN as within tolerance, silently passing it; force those cells to fail. Both-NaN stays NaN (and passes), since both being missing means they are equal.