Handling NaN nodata values in reclassify_raster#465
Merged
davemfish merged 2 commits intonatcap:mainfrom Mar 2, 2026
Merged
Conversation
claire-simpson
approved these changes
Feb 27, 2026
Contributor
claire-simpson
left a comment
claire-simpson
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good to me, thanks @phargogh!
davemfish
approved these changes
Mar 2, 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
3 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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
This small PR handles the case where a raster passed to
pygeoprocessing.reclassify_rasterhas a NaN nodata value. I chose to usepygeoprocessing.array_equals_nodatainstead of simply addingequals_nan=Truetonumpy.iscloseso that we could take advantage of the special case speedups that are handled in that helper function.Dave and Claire, I requested a review from both of you because you were discussing this over in #454.
Fixes:#454
Readthedocs build failures are addressed in #470