Support rounding of UnitScalars in Python 3 about scimath

[rahulporuri]

It looks like the round built-in function uses the UnitScalar.__int__ method on Python 2 I'm not sure what the round built-in is using on Python 2 but on Python 3, it tries to use the u.__round__ method, which doesn't exist on an UnitScalar object.

[mdickinson]

I'm not 100% convinced that rounding makes sense for values with units, or at least, not in a way that fits the round function: it doesn't make sense to round a length to two decimal places, while it does make sense to round a length to the nearest cm / km / inch / 1/8 inch, etc.

How about a utility function round_to_multiple_of(value, target_unit) (name to be bikeshedded later) that essentially does round(value / target_unit) * target_unit?

[mdickinson]

@JCorson Question about your expectations. If you have:

>>> from scimath.units.api import UnitScalar
>>> u = UnitScalar(12625, units="m")
>>> v = UnitScalar(12.625, units="km")

then u and v are the same length, just with different representations:

>>> u == v
UnitScalar(True, units='None')

What would you want round(u, 2) and round(v, 2) to return in this case? (Or even just round(u) and round(v)?) I'd expect that since u and v are equivalent, the results of round(u, 2) and round(v, 2) should be equivalent, too.

[rahulporuri]

Question about your expectations.

Understanding the usecase will definitely help us in deciding whether or not to support or how to support this functionality.

[mdickinson]

round of course does make sense in the special case of unit-less quantities, and it wouldn't be unreasonable to support that case.

[JCorson]

Sorry about that, I should have been clearer on the use case. We have been using UnitScalars in the project and many tests use assertAlmostEqual. This worked in Python 2, but the tests are all failing in Python 3 with the aforementioned TypeError. The example code was just to reproduce the exception.

[mdickinson]

I'd consider the fact that this works in Python 2.7 to be a bug in scimath: before we even get to round, this depends on the ability to compare a unitfull quantity with a unitless quantity, which seems to me as though it should be a TypeError. It leads to fun situations like this:

>>> x = UnitScalar(2.0, units="ft")
>>> y = UnitScalar(1.0, units="m")
>>> z = 1.5
>>> x < y
UnitScalar(True, units='None')
>>> y < z
UnitScalar(True, units='None')
>>> z < x
UnitScalar(True, units='None')

The other part of this is due to the existence of __float__, which provides an implicit coercion path that Python 2's round uses but Python 3's round doesn't. (I'd argue that it's questionable to be able to convert a unitfull value to a float, too, but removing that ability would probably break code.)

[mdickinson]

To be clear, I'm a strong -1 on the idea of supporting round for non-unitless quantities.

[JCorson]

Make sense, and either way works for me. We have already gone through and made all tests use assertEqual so this isn't blocking anything. FTR our use case was not to compare UnitScalars to floats with assertAlmostEqual, but UnitScalars to UnitScalars. So something like:

exp_value = UnitScalar(10.1234, units='gram')

self.assertAlmostEqual(value, exp_value, places=4) # where value = UnitScalar(10.12340000000001, unit='gram')

It is easy enough for us to just right a function to do the comparison that we want.

[mdickinson]

FTR our use case was not to compare UnitScalars to floats with assertAlmostEqual, but UnitScalars to UnitScalars.

Yep, that's what I assumed you meant. When you do that, the underlying code first subtracts those two UnitScalar values (getting another UnitScalar as the difference), and then compares that difference (or rather the absolute value of the difference) to a float, in this case 1e-4 (from the places = 4). That's the comparison I was talking about that I don't think makes sense.

I'd suggest a custom assertion self.assertEqualToWithin(value1, value2, diff), where all of value1, value2 and diff are comparable "unitful" quantities. E.g., I want to know that my calculated critical dimension is equal to the expected critical dimension to within 1nm, say.

[JCorson]

I'd suggest a custom assertion self.assertEqualToWithin(value1, value2, diff), where all of value1, value2 and diff are comparable "unitful" quantities. E.g., I want to know that my calculated critical dimension is equal to the expected critical dimension to within 1nm, say.

Yup. Sounds good to me.

[jonathanrocher]

I had some general assertion functions to do what you want I believe so I pushed it as a PR: #85 .

[mdickinson]

I also opened an issue #86 for the comparison of incomparable quantities.