Add rename_vars and rename_dims

[jukent]

• Closes Rename dims independently from coords? #3026
• Tests added
• Fully documented, including whats-new.rst for all changes and api.rst for new API

[jukent]

I uninstalled the bot that automatically closed the pull request #3042

[pep8speaks]

Hello @jukent! Thanks for updating this PR. We checked the lines you've touched for PEP 8 issues, and found:

There are currently no PEP 8 issues detected in this Pull Request. Cheers! 🍻

Comment last updated at 2019-07-02 18:28:57 UTC

[max-sixty]

FYI the failure in appveyor is unrelated and can be ignored

[max-sixty]

Great! Thanks @jukent

Only items:

• remove miscreant (vscode?) file
• depending on your + others thoughts, change to rename_variables
• add kwargs test

[dcherian]

@jukent You should also give yourself credit in whats-new.rst and add stuff to api.rst. I also see that you're a first-time contributor. Welcome! We really appreciate your efforts.

[max-sixty]

FYI tests are failing with E NameError: name '_rename_var_dims_helper' is not defined: https://travis-ci.org/pydata/xarray/jobs/550940568

[jukent]

FYI tests are failing with E NameError: name '_rename_var_dims_helper' is not defined: https://travis-ci.org/pydata/xarray/jobs/550940568

Huh not sure why that is. I can remove that function and see if it works then.

[shoyer]

I would definitely recommend reading through our contributor's guide on how to setup a local environment for testing your code: http://xarray.pydata.org/en/stable/contributing.html

It is much easier to fix issues when you run tests locally rather than waiting on continuous integration tests (Travis-CI) to tell you that things are broken.

[jukent]

I would definitely recommend reading through our contributor's guide on how to setup a local environment for testing your code: http://xarray.pydata.org/en/stable/contributing.html

It is much easier to fix issues when you run tests locally rather than waiting on continuous integration tests (Travis-CI) to tell you that things are broken.

Thank you was just needing to look into this.

[jukent]

Checks could be more complicated, but I think this is ready to merge!

[dcherian]

whats-new fix required. Otherwise LGTM.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #3045 into master will increase coverage by 1.01%.
The diff coverage is 94.11%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #3045      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   93.78%   94.79%   +1.01%     
==========================================
  Files          68       67       -1     
  Lines       13156    12892     -264     
==========================================
- Hits        12338    12221     -117     
+ Misses        818      671     -147

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
xarray/core/dataset.py	96.14% <94.11%> (-0.1%)	⬇️
xarray/_version.py

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 0aeee7f...b3232ad. Read the comment docs.

[dcherian]

OK fixed whats-new. Sorry it gets a little confusing if there's been a release in the meantime.

This looks good to me. @max-sixty check once more and merge?

[shoyer]

Looking at the coverage report from codecov above, it looks like the lines where you raise ValueError for non-existent keys currently don't have any test coverage. Please add unit tests that verify the right error is raised, i.e., with pytest.raises.

[max-sixty]

The code looks great now, nice work @jukent - very succinct

If we can add that small test that @shoyer references (can do it in one of the existing test, just two lines), and potentially there's a duplication in the whatsnew.

(I'm on vacation so don't wait for me to merge)

[jukent]

Added those tests for for the raised Value Error.

[shoyer]

pep8speaks has a few minor style complaints to fix: #3045 (comment)

[shoyer]

For future reference, try to leave out redundant comments like this that literally describe how code works. If it would be just as clear to read the code directly, it's best to let code stand on its own.

[shoyer]

thanks @jukent !

[max-sixty]

Thanks @jukent! We're happy to have you as a contributor!