geopandas
geopandas copied to clipboard
geopandas
Don't override map_kwds zoom levels
This closes #2325 to prevent zoom levels in map_kwds from being overridden.
Conda build failures seem sporadic and unrelated...
They are - there are issues with 39-latest-conda-forge.yaml at moment with a bit on chat on gitter
Change looks ok - but I would expect a test case in test_explore.py as this is a behaviour change (from incorrect to correct). I would expect this is quite simple using _fetch_map_string() helper function. need to check for expected zoom levels
Hey @rraymondgh, thanks for the tip. I went ahead and added three tests instead of just the one (only min, only max, and both). Hope this works.
@m-richards or @jorisvandenbossche, any of you available to give this a look please?
@kapoor1992 sorry, this completely slipped of my radar. Can you update this branch from main and ensure that all tests are green?
Hey @martinfleis, I updated the branch and everything's been re-ran. The only failure is unrelated to the change here (and I see it in other PRs). Does this look fine to you?
Hey @m-richards, is the changelog entry something you'll be taking on or shall I? The current version in main has no newest version number for the next release and there's no date, and I'm not familiar with the process on this repository for adding a placeholder release (or even if we do) to the changelog.
Hey @m-richards, is the changelog entry something you'll be taking on or shall I? The current version in main has no newest version number for the next release and there's no date, and I'm not familiar with the process on this repository for adding a placeholder release (or even if we do) to the changelog.
Ah sorry, didn't realise we have no template at rhe moment. I can add an entry if that's easier.
@m-richards good to know that we can have a placeholder. I went ahead and added a new section to the changelog in this PR with a TBD date, hope it looks alright!
@martinfleis and @m-richards, is there anything else I need to do here or will someone take care of the merge when the time is right? Just hoping I don't need to refresh from main again :)
Hey @kapoor1992, thanks for checking in, nothing needed from you. In principle there's nothing stopping this from being merged, the ci failure is unrelated, but ideally #2637 would be resolved and we'd fix the CI checks before merging this. I'm happy to re-merge this back up to date with origin/main myself if we need to when it this does actually get merged.