Skip to content

test: document join scoping for a region absent from the query - #1195

Draft
jan-glx wants to merge 2 commits into
scverse:mainfrom
jan-glx:test/document-join-scoping-for-unqueried-region
Draft

test: document join scoping for a region absent from the query#1195
jan-glx wants to merge 2 commits into
scverse:mainfrom
jan-glx:test/document-join-scoping-for-unqueried-region

Conversation

@jan-glx

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Pins down current behavior for a table row whose region wasn't part of spatial_element_names, for both a real-but-unqueried element and one missing from the SpatialData object entirely (reachable e.g. via sdata.subset(..., filter_tables=False)). "left", "left_exclusive", "inner" and "right_exclusive" all scope themselves to the queried elements only; "right" always returns the table unfiltered. So "right_exclusive" isn't simply "right minus inner" here, and the two unqueried-region scenarios are currently indistinguishable to join_spatialelement_table.

No behavior change; this documents the status quo ahead of a design decision on which of these two behaviors (if either) is intended.

jan-glxand others added 2 commits August 28, 2026 17:40
Pins down current behavior for a table row whose region wasn't part of
spatial_element_names, for both a real-but-unqueried element and one
missing from the SpatialData object entirely (reachable e.g. via
sdata.subset(..., filter_tables=False)). "left", "left_exclusive", "inner"
and "right_exclusive" all scope themselves to the queried elements only;
"right" always returns the table unfiltered. So "right_exclusive" isn't
simply "right minus inner" here, and the two unqueried-region scenarios are
currently indistinguishable to join_spatialelement_table.
No behavior change; this documents the status quo ahead of a design
decision on which of these two behaviors (if either) is intended.
@codecov

codecovBot commented Aug 28, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 91.89%. Comparing base (8def24d) to head (8e85e13).

Additional details and impacted files
@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #1195 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 91.89% 91.89% =======================================
Files 53 53 Lines 7942 7942 =======================================
Hits 7298 7298 Misses 644 644 
🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant

@jan-glx