Skip to content

Prevent unit equivalencies from interfering with an error message#19043

Open
eerovaher wants to merge 2 commits into
astropy:mainfrom
eerovaher:skycoord-velocity-units-error-message
Open

Prevent unit equivalencies from interfering with an error message#19043
eerovaher wants to merge 2 commits into
astropy:mainfrom
eerovaher:skycoord-velocity-units-error-message

Conversation

@eerovaher
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Description

If a user tries to create a SkyCoord with positions and velocities that have incompatible units then normally they get an informative error message:

>>> from astropy import units as u
>>> from astropy.coordinates import SkyCoord
>>> SkyCoord(0 * u.deg, 0 * u.deg, 1 * u.kpc, radial_velocity=1)
Traceback (most recent call last):
  ...
ValueError: distance has unit "kpc" with physical type "length", but radial_velocity has incompatible unit "" with physical type "dimensionless" instead of the expected "speed/velocity".

But unit equivalencies can interfere with that, in which case the error message will be quite cryptic:

>>> with u.set_enabled_equivalencies(u.doppler_redshift()):
...     SkyCoord(0 * u.deg, 0 * u.deg, 1 * u.kpc, radial_velocity=1)
... 
Traceback (most recent call last):
  ...
ValueError: For differential object '<RadialDifferential (d_distance) [dimensionless]
    (1.,)>', expected unit key = 'm' but received key = 's'

The problem can be solved by using physical types, which are not affected by unit equivalencies.

  • By checking this box, the PR author has requested that maintainers do NOT use the "Squash and Merge" button. Maintainers should respect this when possible; however, the final decision is at the discretion of the maintainer that merges the PR.

@eerovaher eerovaher added this to the v7.2.1 milestone Dec 9, 2025
@eerovaher eerovaher requested a review from mhvk December 9, 2025 20:59
@github-actions
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

github-actions Bot commented Dec 9, 2025

Thank you for your contribution to Astropy! 🌌 This checklist is meant to remind the package maintainers who will review this pull request of some common things to look for.

  • Do the proposed changes actually accomplish desired goals?
  • Do the proposed changes follow the Astropy coding guidelines?
  • Are tests added/updated as required? If so, do they follow the Astropy testing guidelines?
  • Are docs added/updated as required? If so, do they follow the Astropy documentation guidelines?
  • Is rebase and/or squash necessary? If so, please provide the author with appropriate instructions. Also see instructions for rebase and squash.
  • Did the CI pass? If no, are the failures related? If you need to run daily and weekly cron jobs as part of the PR, please apply the "Extra CI" label. Codestyle issues can be fixed by the bot.
  • Is a change log needed? If yes, did the change log check pass? If no, add the "no-changelog-entry-needed" label. If this is a manual backport, use the "skip-changelog-checks" label unless special changelog handling is necessary.
  • Is this a big PR that makes a "What's new?" entry worthwhile and if so, is (1) a "what's new" entry included in this PR and (2) the "whatsnew-needed" label applied?
  • At the time of adding the milestone, if the milestone set requires a backport to release branch(es), apply the appropriate "backport-X.Y.x" label(s) before merge.

If a user tries to create a `SkyCoord` with positions and velocities
that have incompatible units then normally they get an informative error
message. The updated tests reveal that if the `u.doppler_redshift()`
unit equivalency is enabled then they get a much more cryptic error
message instead.
Previously trying to create a `SkyCoord` with positions and velocities
that have incompatible units could cause the error message to be
needlessly cryptic if unit equivalencies were enabled, but now the error
message for incompatible units is the intended one regardless of
equivalencies.
@eerovaher eerovaher force-pushed the skycoord-velocity-units-error-message branch from 5f3a62b to 2148f34 Compare December 9, 2025 21:03
@github-actions github-actions Bot added the Close? Tell stale bot that this issue/PR is stale label May 9, 2026
@github-actions
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

github-actions Bot commented May 9, 2026

Hi humans 👋 - this pull request hasn't had any new commits for approximately 5 months. I plan to close this in a month if the pull request doesn't have any new commits by then.

In lieu of a stalled pull request, please consider closing this and open an issue instead if a reminder is needed to revisit in the future. Maintainers may also choose to add keep-open label to keep this PR open but it is discouraged unless absolutely necessary.

If this PR still needs to be reviewed, as an author, you can rebase it to reset the clock.

If you believe I commented on this pull request incorrectly, please report this here.

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

Labels

backport-v7.2.x on-merge: backport to v7.2.x Bug Close? Tell stale bot that this issue/PR is stale coordinates no-changelog-entry-needed

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant